CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, July 5, 2017 5:30 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (Consultation with legal counsel regarding the status of pending litigation between the City and Charlottesville Parking Center, Inc.; Boards and Commissions) 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS Parks and Recreation Month ANNOUNCEMENTS CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC Public comment is provided for up to 15 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 10 spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. The number of speakers is unlimited at the end of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA* (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.) a. Minutes for June 19, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program – $90,000 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: $23,312.37 to Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for loan repay (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Strategic Investment Area Form-Based Code – $228,000 (1st of 2 readings) e. RESOLUTION: Expanding McIntire Recycling Center Hours (1st of 1 reading) f. RESOLUTION: RSWA Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs (1st of 1 reading) g. ORDINANCE: Cemetery Access Easement at Buford Middle School (2nd of 2 readings) h. ORDINANCE: City Land Conveyance at Grady Avenue and Preston Avenue (2nd of 2 readings) i. ORDINANCE: Quitclaim Gas Easements to VDOT (Fontana and Hyland Ridge Subdivisions) (1st of 2 readings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING / Approval of Sale of Baylor Lane Lot (1st of 2 readings) – 10 min ORDINANCE* 3. PUBLIC HEARING / King St. Rezoning Application (1st of 2 readings) – 15 min ORDINANCE* 4. PUBLIC HEARING / 1011 E. Jefferson Special Use Permit (1st of 1 reading) – 40 min RESOLUTION* 5. RESOLUTION* BAR Denial Appeal – 1521 University Avenue (1st of 1 reading) – 20 min 6. ORDINANCE* Solar Energy Systems Zoning Text Amendment (1st of 2 readings) – 15 min 7. REPORT: Parking Update – 20 min RESOLUTION* • Establishing Parking Rates (1st of 1 reading) ORDINANCE* • Parking Ordinance Changes (1st of 2 readings) RESOLUTION* • Parking Advisory Board (1st of 1 reading) 8. REPORT Efficiency Study Priority 1 Recommendations Update – 15 min 9. RESOLUTION* Vinegar Hill Monument (1st of 1 reading) – 15 min 10. RESOLUTION* Liberation Day (1st of 1 reading) – 10 min OTHER BUSINESS GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT We welcome public comment; it is an important part of our meeting. Time is reserved near the beginning and at the end of each regular City Council meeting for Matters by the Public. Please follow these guidelines for public comment: • If you are here to speak for a Public Hearing, please wait to speak on the matter until the report for that item has been presented and the Public Hearing has been opened. • Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your name and address before beginning your remarks. • Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you agree with them. • Please refrain from using obscenities. • If you cannot follow these guidelines, you will be escorted from City Council Chambers and not permitted to reenter. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434) 970-3182. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 19, 2017 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Management Specialist Staff Contacts: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Management Specialist Title: Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program - $90,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has received approval for reimbursement of up to $90,000 from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program to provide free breakfast and lunch to children attending summer camp programs. Discussion: Charlottesville Parks and Recreation will run six Summer Camp programs throughout the City of Charlottesville. These sites serve children in Pre K-10th grades, for eight weeks during the summer, June 19-August 11. Various activities are planned from 9:00am-4:00pm, Monday through Friday. The Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program provides free, nutritious breakfast and lunch for these children. Most of the children are served receive free or reduced meals during the school year. Over 600 children were enrolled in Summer Camps last year. The $90,000 appropriation covers the cost of the food and administration of the summer food service program. The lunches are purchased through the City of Charlottesville School Food Service. The Parks and Recreation Department pays the bills to the City of Charlottesville Food Service and is then reimbursed by the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Programs. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and it contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan to be a safe, equitable, thriving, and beautiful community. Children will receive nutritious breakfast, lunch and/or dinner, hopefully replacing a meal that did not exist or providing a healthier balanced option for them. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds Alternatives: If money is not appropriated, the free breakfast and lunch program will not be offered to youth, most of whom receive free or reduced meals during the school year. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program $90,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Parks and Recreation, has received approval for reimbursement up to $90,000 from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program to provide free breakfast and lunch to children attending summer camp programs; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from period June 1, 2017 through October 31, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $90,000, received from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $90,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900282 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures - $90,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900282 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $105,000 from the Virginia Department of Health Special Nutrition Program. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 19, 2017 Action Required: Approval of Appropriation Staff Contacts: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Presenter: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Title: Appropriation of Funds - $23,312.37 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for repayment of BXBC rehabilitation loan (CP-084) Background: The City has received funds that need to be appropriated. The City issued a $28,087.20 substantial rehab loan, through the Block by Block Charlottesville 10th & Page program, on June 25, 2013 to Lutticia Wilhite, 513 11th Street, NW. The loan term was for 15 years, with 1/15 of the loan amount forgiven each year. The terms of the loan included a 3 percent administrative fee to be applied if Mrs. Wilhite sold the property prior to the expiration of the loan term. Mrs. Wilhite is now selling the property. On May 31, 2017, the City received a check in the amount of $23,312.37 to satisfy the remaining balance of the loan ($22,469.69), as well as an administrative fee equal to $842.61 (3 percent of original loan amount). Discussion: The loan satisfaction payment received from Mrs. Wilhite meets the terms of loan agreement and needs to be appropriated to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CP-084). Community Engagement: There has been no direct community engagement on this issue, as the payment received from Mrs. Wilhite was made to satisfy the remaining balance of her June 25, 2013 substantial rehabilitation loan. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision of „Quality Housing for All‟ and with the Strategic Plan Goal 1.3 to “Increase affordable housing options.” Budgetary Impact: The appropriated funds will increase the overall budget of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund, and the amount of funds available for distribution from that fund. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the appropriation. Alternatives: There is no alternative for appropriation of the funds, as these funds must be returned to their original source. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Lutticia Wilhite Substantial Rehab Loan Payoff -- $23,312.37 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funding from the payoff of the Lutticia Wilhite Deed of Trust ($23,312.37); and NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $23,312.37 be received as payment from Lutticia Wilhite, and appropriated as follows: Revenues: $23,312.37 Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Code: 451160 Expenditures: $23,312.37 Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Code: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 5, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Alex Ikefuna, Director, NDS Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director Title: Strategic Investment Area Form-Based Code - $228,000 Background: On December 19, 2016, City Council approved a resolution to procure a consultant to assist with the development of a Form-Based Code (F.B.C.) to implement Phase I of the Strategic Investment Area Plan (SIA). The Resolution also indicated that the City Council “is willing to authorize a budget for such services up to $228,000.” Discussion: Staff prepared and published a Request for Proposal (Form-Based Code/17-67) to solicit the services of a Form-Based Code firm to assist with the development of the F.B.C. Three proposals were received from Form Based Code Institute, Torti Gallas and Code Studio. The Form Based Code Institute was selected for the project due to the comprehensiveness of their proposal, citizen engagement plan strategy, support for adoption process, and training component. The fee for the project is approximately $200,000; however, we are requesting for all of the authorized $228,000 due to other expenses not part of the proposed fee. Those include citizen engagement professional to facilitate the kick-off community meeting, charrette expenses, etc. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: As this project is associated with the Small Area Plan implementation and Comprehensive Plan, all aspects of the Council Vision are addressed in one way or another. It also contributes to Goal 5 of the Strategic Plan, A well-managed and responsive organization and Objective 5.4, Foster effective community engagement. Community Engagement: There was no formal community engagement process for the consultant selection process; however, the Selection Committee included a combination of City staff, representatives from the developer community, Public Housing Association of Residents (PHAR), Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (C.R.H.A.), Piedmont Housing Alliance/Friendship Court, Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association, Ridge Street Neighborhood Association, North Downtown Neighborhood Association, Locust Avenue Neighborhood Association and Downtown Business Association. Additionally, more community engagement process will occur as part of the overall Form-Based Code development. Budgetary Impact: The funds will be transferred from previously appropriated funding in the Capital Improvement Program Contingency account to the SIA Form-Based Code project account. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this appropriation. Alternatives: N/A Attachments: Authorizing Resolution approved December 19, 2016 Appropriation RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROCURMENT OF A CONSULTANT TO ASSIST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FORM-BASED ZONING CODE TO IMPLEMENT PHASE I OF THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AREA PLAN WHEREAS, this Council has determined that the City would benefit from having professional planning assistance for the development of a form-based code to implement Phase I of the Strategic Investment Area Plan; and WHEREAS, City Council is willing to authorize a budget for such services of up to $228,000; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that Council authorizes staff to take all actions necessary to procure the services of a consultant within the budget authorized by this resolution. Approved by Council December 19, 2016 Clerk of Council APPROPRIATION Strategic Investment Area Form-Based Code - $228,000 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the funding for the Strategic Investment Area Form-Based Code project is hereby transferred in the following manner: Transfer From; $228,000 Fund: 426 WBS: CP-080 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To $228,000 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00947 G/L Account: 599999 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 5, 2017 Action Required: Approval of Resolution Presenter: Paul Oberdorfer, Public Works Director Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager S. Craig Brown, City Attorney Title: RSWA/Albemarle County/City – McIntire Recycling Center Hours of Operation Background: Last year the City of Charlottesville (City) agreed to extend its funding for the McIntire Recycling Center (MRC) for one year (until June 30, 2017) and Council is expected to consider another one year extension in July. This would allow Albemarle County (County) time to decide on its long term solid waste management strategy. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) has asked the City to extend the expiration date of the Agreement to June 30, 2018. The County Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (Committee) was established by the County Board of Supervisors (Board) at its March 2, 2016 meeting as a standing advisory committee. The Committee is charged with developing policies for consideration by the Board related to waste and litter reduction, materials reuse, recycling and composting, greenhouse gas reduction, and waste disposal. Policy recommendations are to be supported by evaluations of budgetary and environmental impacts. The Committee delivered its first semi-annual general update to the Board on February 1, 2017 and will provide specific policy recommendations as they are developed. City staff attends the Committee meetings to engage with stakeholders. Discussion: Councilor Galvin has brought forward the proposed optional operating hours to Council. While the County has recommended Option #3 at the June 7, 2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting, there are several options for Council to consider regarding expanded hours for the McIntire Recycling Center. The Committee has investigated the expansion of operating hours at the McIntire Recycling Center to better serve the public. The Committee notes that usage of the Center has decreased between the years 2007 and 2016 and suggests several reasons for this reduction. The Committee also notes that a recent survey of users of the Center indicates a widespread interest in expanded operational hours. The Committee communicated its consideration of expanded hours to management at the RSWA, the operator of the McIntire Recycle Center. The RSWA provided costs for existing hours and for two expanded-hour options. The Committee recommends expanding the hours of operation during Daylight Savings Time on open days and increasing the total number of days open by adding Monday to the schedule. This recommendation is to authorize an increase in the operating days and hours of the MRC. The proposed operating schedule will include the following schedule changes: • Monday will be added as a day the MRC is open. The MRC is currently closed on Monday and Tuesday. • Operating hours will increase from 40 to 60 hours per week during Daylight Savings Time (March – November). • Operating hours will increase from 40 to 54 hours per week during Eastern Standard Time (winter). The additional cost to add one day and additional hours is estimated to be $19,200 per year. The Committee recommended extended and more consistent hours for the MRC as a means to better serve the public. This recommendation was supported by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and will be considered by the Charlottesville City Council on July 5, 2017. The County (70%) and the City (30%) share the expenses of the MRC and Paper Sort recycling facilities. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Vision of Charlottesville as a “Green City” which encourages recycling. Community Engagement: Albemarle County has a citizen committee which is working on this issue. City staff participate in these meetings. Budgetary Impact: Sufficient funding is available in the proposed FY18 budget. Recommendation: Approve extension of the agreement. Alternatives: Discontinue funding for the McIntire Recycling Center. Attachments: 1. Recommendation Memo from the Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee 2. Survey of McIntire Recycling Users, January 2017 3. Options for the operation of McIntire Recycling Center prepared for the Committee by the RSWA 4. Information on the history and usage of McIntire Recycling Center from 2007 to 2016 5. Councilor Galvin June 19, 2017 Email to William Mawyer, P.E., RSWA Executive Director – McIntire hours 6. Board Meeting Agenda for June 7, 2017 RESOLUTION Approval of McIntire Recycling Center Hours of Operation BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the proposed expanded McIntire Recycling Center (MRC) operating hours are approved: • Monday will be added as a day the MRC is open. • Operating hours will increase from 40 to 60 hours per week during Daylight Savings Time (March – November). • Operating hours will increase from 40 to 54 hours per week during Eastern Standard Time (winter). Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee June 2017 Policy Recommendation of the Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (SWAAC) Committee Members: Teddy Hamilton (Chair), Jesse Warren (Vice-Chair), Peggy Gilges (Secretary), Paul Grady, Chuck Riegle, Andrea Bostrom, one position vacant Liz Palmer and Norman Dill – BOS Liaisons In October 2015, the Long Range Solid Waste Solutions Advisory Committee included, as one of the recommendations in their final report, that Albemarle County provide RSWA an appropriation increase to expand daily hours of operation at McIntire Recycling Center and Ivy MUC. The current Solid Waste Alternatives Advisory Committee (the Committee) has been investigating the feasibility of implementing the McIntire Recycling Center recommendation over the last several months. This investigation has looked at the historic and current schedule for the facility, as well as the various events that have impacted, in one way or another, the use of the facility. Additionally, the Committee asked the RSWA to attend a meeting to discuss the possibilities of extending operational hours as well as expanding the types of materials received (batteries, for example). The RSWA subsequently ran an onsite survey for one week in January at McIntire Recycling Center. The historical timeline for McIntire Recycling Center, from 2007 to 2016, demonstrates a reduction, over the decade, of recyclable materials turned in at the facility. This reduction is due to a number of factors, including the opening of a materials recovery facility or MRF (specifically, a “dirty MRF”) in Troy, V! that is used by several local haulers. In particular, the use of the dirty MRF by local haulers has led to a decline in active recycling as a result of misinformation regarding the level of recycling that is achieved by the “all in one bin” waste pickup, where all waste and recyclable materials are collected in a single container and separation only occurs at the MRF. Low levels of recycling can be achieved in this system, but a misconception exists within our community that much higher levels of recycling are achieved through the use of technology. Other significant factors include the onset of the recession in 2009 that led to the closure of McIntire on Mondays and a reduction in hours on other days, and the implementation of curbside recycling pickup within the City of Charlottesville in 2014. Despite the reduction over time in recycling materials turned in at McIntire, the results of the survey in January 2017 indicate that over twelve hundred vehicles visited the facility during the week, and 78% of the respondents were supportive of expanding operational hours. It is noteworthy that nearly a third of the visitors to McIntire Recycling Center were city residents. The Committee supports both expanding hours during the Daylight Savings Time period on the days that McIntire is open, which is estimated to cost an additional $9,400, and increasing the number of days McIntire is open by adding Monday to the facility’s operational schedule, which is estimated to cost an additional $9,800. The estimated combined cost of these recommended changes is $19,200. Critical to the expansion of the operating schedule is the dissemination of this new schedule to the public via City and County information outlets, as well as every standard news outlet format. The announcement can also include information on the composting opportunity that is now available at McIntire and which currently receives over 2 tons per month of compost material. The announcement of the expanded hours and/or additional day needs to be made well ahead of the actual schedule change so that the public is aware and can utilize the greater access and flexibility starting with the first day of the new schedule. At such time as lighting can be improved at the facility, then the possibility of expanding hours year-round could be assessed. Attachments:  Survey of McIntire Recycling Users, January 2017  Options for the operation of McIntire Recycling Center prepared for the Committee by the RSWA  Information on the history and usage of McIntire Recycling Center from 2007 to 2016 Dawkins, Sarah From: Jones, Maurice Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:13 AM To: Oberdorfer, Paul Subject: FW: McIntire hours Attachments: Extended Hours Options for SWAC 4.4.17.pdf; ATT00001.htm Sent with Good (www.good.com) From: Jones, Maurice Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:12:39 AM To: Ikefuna, Alexander Cc: Rice, Paige Subject: FW: McIntire hours Sent with Good (www.good.com) From: Galvin, Kathy Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 4:08:34 PM To: Council Cc: Jones, Maurice; Rice, Paige; Beauregard, Leslie; Kathleen M. Galvin Subject: Fwd: McIntire hours Colleagues, I will be bringing up expanding the hours at Mcintire recycling tonight under other business. Thanks! Kathy Kathleen M. Galvin, AIA Charlottesville City Councilor Begin forwarded message: From: Bill Mawyer Date: June 19, 2017 at 3:07:07 PM EDT To: Kathy Galvin Cc: Lonnie Wood , "Dr. Liz Palmer" , Teri Kent Subject: RE: McIntire hours Kathy, 1 Your email below is correct. Liz has asked us to put a proposal on the June RSWA agenda to approve expansion of the McIntire hours for an estimated additional cost of $19,200 per year. The additional hours are shown by the attachment (Option 3). We can cover the cost within our current RSWA recycling budget, but understand that we bill the City (30 %) and County (70%) for all actual recycling costs at the McIntire and Paper Sort facilities. So assuming the additional $19,200 is incurred, the cost will be billed to the City and County and the total annual cost will increase unless other recycling expenses are less than estimated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, and yes, I had a terrific Father’s Day with the family (golf and dinner). Thank you for asking. Bill Mawyer Executive Director Rivanna Authorities 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, Va 22902 bmawyer@rivanna.org 434‐977‐2970 ext. 103 From: Galvin, Kathy [mailto:kgalvin@charlottesville.org] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 11:33 AM To: Bill Mawyer Subject: Mcintire hours Hello Bill, I hope you had a nice Father's Day! It is my understanding that the county's Solid Waste committee's recommended expansion of the hours at the McIntire recycling center and that the Albemarle BOS approved doing so at their June 7th meeting. At that time, the assumption was that the cost will be covered 70% by the County and 30% by the City and this can be covered within the current RWSA budget. Could you please confirm that this is in fact the case ? Many thanks. Best, Kathy Kathleen M. Galvin, AIA Charlottesville City Councilor 2 Albemarle County Meeting Agenda Board of Supervisors Supervisor, Rivanna District Norman G. Dill Supervisor, White Hall District Ann H. Mallek Supervisor, Jack Jouett District Diantha H. McKeel Supervisor, Samuel Miller District Liz A. Palmer Supervisor, Scottsville District Rick Randolph Supervisor, Rio District Brad L. Sheffield Interim County Executive, Douglas C. Walker Clerk, Claudette K. Borgersen Wednesday, June 7, 2017 9:00 AM Lane Auditorium 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. 6. Recognitions: 6.1. 17-357 Resolution of Appreciation for David Bass 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet) 9:30 a.m. - Action Item: 9. 17-371 City/County MOU Update Lee Catlin, Assistant County Executive 10:00 a.m. - Presentations: 10. 17-403 Board-to-Board, May 2017, A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Kate Acuff, Chair, School Board Albemarle County Page 1 Printed on 6/1/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda June 7, 2017 11. 17-404 Community Health Improvement Plan. Denise Bonds, Director, Thomas Jefferson Health District 12. 17-405 Hydraulic Area Project Advisory Panel Update. Mark Graham, Director, Community Development 13. 17-406 Transformational Initiatives Update. Bill Letteri, Deputy County 14. 12:00 p.m. - Closed Meeting. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. 16. Boards and Commissions: 16.1. 17-402 Vacancies and Appointments. Travis Morris 1:00 p.m. 17. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. Public Hearings: 18. 17-378 FY 2018 Appropriations and On-going Funding of Multi-Year Capital Projects Lori Allshouse, Director, Office of Management and Budget 19. 17-391 Ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl John Blair, Deputy County Attorney 20. 17-375 Compensation of Board of Supervisors Greg Kamptner 21. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 22. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 23. Closed Meeting. (if needed) 24. Adjourn to June 14, 2017, 4:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium. Albemarle County Page 2 Printed on 6/1/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda June 7, 2017 CONSENT AGENDA 8. FOR APPROVAL (by recorded vote): 8.1. 17-380 FY 2017 Appropriations Lori Allshouse 8.2. 17-260 Wireless Service Authority Draft Resolution and Articles of Incorporation Mike Culp 8.3. 17-385 Business License Ordinance Amendments (Chapter 8) Betty Burrell 8.4. 17-387 Tax Ordinance Amendments (Chapter 15) Betty Burrell 8.5. 17-388 Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the Economic Development Authority Greg Kamptner 8.6. 17-379 Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Lease Amendment 8.7. 17-328 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY17 Applicant Pool Ches Goodall 8.8. 17-383 Extension of deferral request for SP201400014 - Faith Temple Church (new sanctuary addition) Christopher Perez 8.9. 17-392 Recommendation on Extended Hours at McIntire Recycling Center Greg Harper 8.10. 17-400 Hollymead Towncenter - Meeting Street Phase II 8.11. 17-374 Timberwood Boulevard Phase I And Phase II 8. FOR INFORMATION (no vote necessary): 8.12. 17-382 County Grant Application/Award Report. Holly Bittle 8.13. 17-269 Annual Report of Board of Zoning Appeals Amelia McCulley Albemarle County Page 3 Printed on 6/1/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda June 7, 2017 8.14. 17-396 Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report David Hannah Albemarle County Page 4 Printed on 6/1/2017 Board of Supervisors Meeting Agenda June 7, 2017 Thank you for attending today's public hearing. During the 2017 Calendar Year, the Chair is Diantha H. McKeel. During the time set aside for "Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda" at the beginning of each meeting, individuals will be allowed a three-minute time limit in which to speak, unless otherwise decided. A sign up sheet is provided for your name, address and magisterial district. If you are with a group of people, you may want to have a spokesperson present your position to the Board and have others in agreement recognized by standing. If there are an unusually large number of people present to speak under this item, the Board may need to limit the number of speakers it can hear at the beginning of the meeting or limit the time each person may speak. During public hearings, the Board will try to hear everyone who wishes to speak on a subject (sign-up lists for speakers are used), but sometimes discussion has to be limited because of time constraints. If a previous speaker has stated your position, you may make that known by reference. Applicants are limited to a ten-minute presentation of their proposal and will be allowed a five-minute rebuttal at the close of the public hearing. Other speakers are limited to one appearance of three minutes. If additional time is required, it may be granted by consent of the Board for good cause, but such decision shall be at the sole discretion of the Board of Supervisors. The timekeeper will signal when your time is up. In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the Board requests that speakers adhere to the following guidelines: (Note: All comments are recorded): Come forward to the speaker's podium and state your name and magisterial district (if you have an unusual spelling for your name, please spell it for the recorder); Do not speak from your seat or out of turn; Address comments directly to the Board as a whole; State your position and give facts and other data to back it up; If you represent a group or organization, you may ask others present to rise and be recognized; Back-and-forth debate is prohibited; The Board usually listens to all speakers before responding to questions asked on issues raised; Give written statements and other supporting material to the Clerk (written comments are also welcome if you do not wish to speak); The Chair may ask speakers to form a line in the interest of time; Please hold all applause and other forms of approval or disapproval, as a courtesy to each speaker; Please turn off all pagers and cellular telephones. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Albemarle County Page 5 Printed on 6/1/2017 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 5, 2017 Action Required: Yes (Authorize City Manager to Sign Agreement) Presenter: Paul Oberdorfer, Public Works Director Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager S. Craig Brown, City Attorney Title: RSWA/Albemarle County/City - Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs Background: The County of Albemarle (County), the City of Charlottesville (City), and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) entered into an Agreement dated August 23, 2011, providing the terms of the County's and City's shared financial support for, and the RSWA's operation of, recycling services at the McIntire Road Recycling Center (McIntire). There have been five (5) amendments to this agreement to extend the term of the agreement. The current agreement amendment, Amendment No. 5, expires on June 30, 2017. The attached Amendment No. 6 to the Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Services (Attachment 1) is an additional extension of services through June 30, 2018. Discussion: The Amendment No. 6 to the Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Services (Attachment 1) continues the current funding arrangement and services at McIntire from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. Because the County is a party to the McIntire agreement, the Amendment No. 6 requires Board of Supervisors approval. The Board of Supervisors is expected to consider this extension at one of its June meetings. Additionally, because the RSWA is a party to the McIntire agreement, the Amendment No. 6 requires RSWA Board of Directors approval. The Board of Directors is expected to consider this extension at the June 27, 2017 meeting. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Vision of Charlottesville as a “Green City” which encourages recycling. Community Engagement: Albemarle County has a citizen committee which is working on this issue. City staff participate in these meetings. Budgetary Impact: Sufficient funding is available in the proposed FY18 budget. Recommendation: Approve extension of the agreement. Alternatives: Discontinue funding for the McIntire Recycling Center. Attachments: 1. Signature Resolution - Amendment No. 6 to Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs, Original Agreement dated August 23, 2011 2. RSWA Board of Directors June 27, 2017 Agenda RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to sign the following document, in form approved by the City Attorney or his designee. Amendment No. 6 to the Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs among the City, Albemarle County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, dated August 23, 2011, extending the expiration date of the original Agreement to June 30, 2018. AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT AGREEMENT FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS AMONG THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY This Amendment No. 6 to the Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs (this “Amendment”) is made this ___ day of __________, 2017 by and among the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the “City”), the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the “County”) and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (the “Authority”, individually a “Party”, and together referred to as the “Parties”). WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into a certain Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs dated August 23, 2011 (the “Original Agreement”) providing the terms of the City’s and County’s shared financial support and Authority’s operation of the Recycling Services; and WHEREAS, the Original Agreement provided that such financial support and operations continue through the Authority’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, with the City and County retaining an exclusive option to extend the Original Agreement for two successive one-year periods by giving prior written notice to the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City and County exercised their first option to extend the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2013, but the County elected not to exercise its second option to extend the term through June 30, 2014 and instead requested, with the concurrence of the City, an extension of the Original Agreement through December 31, 2013; and WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Original Agreement dated June 5, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through December 31, 2013; and, WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Original Agreement dated October 23, 2013 extending the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2014; and, WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Original Agreement dated January 28, 2014 extending the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 4 to the Original Agreement dated July 1, 2015 extending the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2016; and, WHEREAS, the City, the County and the Authority entered into Amendment No. 5 to the Original Agreement dated June 6, 2016 extending the term of the Original Agreement through June 30, 2017 (the Original Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, and Amendment No. 5, hereinafter, the “Agreement”); and, WHEREAS, the County desires an additional extension of the term of the Agreement through June 30, 2018, and the City is agreeable to an extension for such period. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Amendment to Section 4. Section 4 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement,” is amended and restated as follows: 4. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall be effective upon execution and the financial participation requirements shall be retroactive to July 1, 2011 and shall continue through June 30, 2018. 2. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless otherwise specifically defined herein. Except as expressly modified hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates below. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: Maurice Jones Date City Manager COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: Doug Walker Date Interim County Executive RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY: Bill Mawyer Date Executive Director RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY 695 Moores Creek Lane  Charlottesville, Virginia 22902  (434) 977-2970 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority DATE: June 27, 2017 LOCATION: Conference Room, Administration Building 695 Moores Creek Lane, Charlottesville, VA TIME: 2:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING a) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board on May 23, 2017 3. RECOGNITION 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 1st attachment (Strategic Planning Project Chart) 5. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC 6. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Staff Report on Finance 1st attachment b) Staff Report on Ivy Material Utilization Center/Recycling Operations Update 1st attachment 2nd attachment c) Staff Report on Ivy Landfill Environmental Status d) Recommendation for an Additional Holiday on July 3, 2017 e) Recommendation for Contract Award: MSW Trucking and Disposal, IMUC f) Proposed Amendment No. 6 to Local Government Support Agreement for Recycling Programs 1st attachment 2nd attachment 8. OTHER BUSINESS a) Recommendation for Contract Award: Land Lease for Solar Project, IMUC - Phil McKalips b) Recommendation for Extended Operating Hours, McIntire Recycling Center - Bill Mawyer 1st attachment 9. OTHER ITEMS FROM BOARD/STAFF NOT ON AGENDA 10. CLOSED MEETING – Personnel Matters 11. ADJOURNMENT 2 GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT RIVANNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS If you wish to address the Rivanna Board of Directors during the time allocated for public comment, please raise your hand or stand when the Chair asks for public comments. Members of the public requesting to speak will be recognized during the speci fic time designated on the meeting agenda for “Items From The Public.” Each person will be allowed to speak for up to three minutes. When two or more individuals are present from the same group, it is recommended that the group designate a spokesperson to present its comments to the Board and the designated speaker can ask other members of the group to be recognized by raising their hand or standing. Each spokesperson for a group will be allowed to speak for up to five minutes. During public hearings, the Board will attempt to hear all members of the public who wish to speak on a subject, but it must be recognized that on rare occasion presentations may have to be limited because of time constraints. If a previous speaker has articulated your position, it is recommended that you not fully repeat the comments and instead advise the Board of your agreement. The time allocated for speakers at public hearings are the same as for regular Board meetings, although the Board can allow exceptions at its discretion. Speakers should keep in mind that Board of Directors meetings are formal proceedings and all comments are recorded on tape. For that reason, speakers are requested to speak from the podium and wait to be recognized by the Chair. In order to give all speakers proper respect and courtesy, the Board requests that speakers follow the following guidelines:  Wait at your seat until recognized by the Chair.  Come forward and state your full name and address and your organizational affiliation if speaking for a group;  Address your comments to the Board as a whole;  State your position clearly and succinctly and give facts and data to support your position;  Summarize your key points and provide the Board with a written statement, or supporting rationale, when possible;  If you represent a group, you may ask others at the meeting to be recognized by raising their hand or standing;  Be respectful and civil in all interactions at Board meetings;  The Board may ask speakers questions or seek clarification, but recognize that Board meetings are not a forum for public debate; Board Members will not recognize comments made from the audience and ask that members of the audience not interrupt the comments of speakers and remain silent while others are speaking so that other members in the audience can hear the speaker;  The Board will have the opportunity to address public comments after the public comment session has been closed;  At the request of the Chair, the Executive Director may address public comments after the session has been closed as well; and  As appropriate, staff will research questions by the public and respond through a report back to the Board at the next regular meeting of the full Board. It is suggested that citizens who have questions for the Board or staff submit those questions in advance of the meeting to permit the opportunity for some research before the meeting. The agendas of Board meetings, and supporting materials, are available from the RWSA Administration Office upon request or can be viewed on the Rivanna website(s) Rev. September 22, 2009 2 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 5, 2017 Actions Required: Yes (First of two readings) Staff Presenter: Craig Brown, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney Re: Cemetery Access easement at Buford Middle School Background: Nancy O’Brien of 501 9th Street is requesting a permanent easement through the Buford Middle School property that is located adjacent to her home. The purpose of the easement will be to allow access through the Buford site to the Fife family cemetery, which is located at the rear of Ms. O’Brien’s property. If approved the easement would only be available for use after Ms. O’Brien no longer owns 501 9th Street. Discussion: The proposed easement is a 40-foot nonexclusive easement that would allow visitors to the cemetery to have access from Cherry Avenue. While the City of Charlottesville holds legal title to the Buford Middle School property, its use as school property means that the City School Board has ultimate control over whether the easement is granted. The six terms and conditions for use of the easement listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Deed of Easement were negotiated between Ms. O’Brien and the City School administration. They are designed to allow access to the family cemetery while minimizing any impact on school operations. This Deed of Easement was approved by the Charlottesville City School Board at their regular meeting on May 4, 2017. Community Engagement: There has been no prior community engagement, but there is an advertised public hearing scheduled before City Council on the granting of the easement. Budget Impact: The granting of the easement will have no impact on the City budget. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance. Alternatives: City Council can decline to approve the easement, or propose different terms and conditions. If the proposed terms of the easement are changed it will need to be considered again by the City School Board. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEED OF EASEMENT FROM THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA AND THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, AS GRANTORS, AND NANCY K. O’BRIEN AND EXPEDITION TRUST COMPANY, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FRANCIS HARRISON FIFE RESIDENCE TRUST, AS GRANTEES, ACROSS THE BUFORD MIDDLE SCHOOL PROPERTY AT 1000 CHERRY AVENUE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the attached Deed of Easement between the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and the School Board of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, as Grantors, and Nancy K. O’Brien and Expedition Trust Company, as Co-Trustees of the Francis Harrison Fife Residence Trust, as Grantees, is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized to execute the Deed and any other documents necessary to consummate the transaction on behalf of the City, in form approved by the City Attorney. Prepared by: S. Craig Brown (VSB #19286) City Attorney’s Office, 605 East Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Tax Map Reference: 230192000 (1000 Cherry Avenue) This deed is exempt from state recordation tax imposed under Va. Code Sec. 58.1-802, pursuant to Va. Code Sec. 58.1-811(C)(4) THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is made and entered into this ______ day of _____________________, 2017, by and between THE SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, whose address is 1562 Dairy Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, whose address is 605 East Main Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, together referenced as “Grantors” herein, and NANCY K. O’BRIEN and EXPEDITION TRUST COMPANY, CO-TRUSTEES OF THE FRANCIS HARRISON FIFE RESIDENCE TRUST and their successors and assigns, the “Grantee” herein, whose address is 310 4th Street, NE, Suite 102, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged by the Grantors, the Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, the following described permanent cemetery access easement, to-wit: A nonexclusive perpetual easement of right-of-way forty feet (40’) in width, as shown by crosshatching and designated as "New 40' Cemetery Access Easement" on the plat of Commonwealth Land Surveying, LLC, entitled “Physical Survey and New Cemetery Access Easement TMP 30- 169 Francis Harrison Fife Trust”, dated August 14, 2015, attached hereto. The aforesaid easement crosses property identified on City Real Property Tax Map 23 as Parcel 192, and commonly known as Buford Middle School, 1000 Cherry Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia. The permanent cemetery access easement is conveyed to the Grantee by the Grantors subject to the following conditions: (1) The easement shall only be for the purposes of ingress to and egress from the family cemetery located on the lands of the Grantee and labeled “Fife Family Cemetery” on the attached plat. (2) Grantee’s use of the easement shall be limited to future burials in and family visitations to said family cemetery. Burials within the family cemetery shall be scheduled in advance with the Buford Middle School administration office, or if unavailable due to a school holiday or vacation period, then with the central school administration office of the City of Charlottesville (as applicable, the "School Office"). Any visitations to the family cemetery which occur while school is in session shall only be made following prior written notification to the School Office. (3) The access easement described herein will not be used by the Grantee until such time as Grantee no longer owns the property currently identified on City Real Property Tax Map 30 as Parcel 169, and commonly known as 501 9th Street, S.W., Charlottesville, VA. (4) The easement granted herein shall terminate if and when the existing traffic circulation pattern of the Buford Middle School campus is changed so that the primary entrance to the school is from 9th Street, S.W., rather than from Cherry Avenue; provided, however, that the easement will terminate only if Grantors grant to the Grantee a replacement permanent cemetery access easement between the 9th Street entrance and the family cemetery, under the same terms and conditions as provided herein. (5) Grantee shall install and maintain, at its own expense, a gate with a lock in the existing chain link fence that separates the Buford Middle School property and the family cemetery, to allow direct access from the easement to the cemetery. Grantee shall provide the School Office with a key to the lock upon request. (6) The Grantee agrees to hold the Grantors harmless from any liability, responsibility, or damages caused by reason of the use of the access easement by the Grantee, its successors or assigns. This Deed of Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Grantors and Grantee and their successors and assigns, and shall be subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions, and other easements of record insofar as they may legally affect the easement. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. [Signature panels on following pages] Grantor: SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By: _______________________________________ Title: _____________________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA City of Charlottesville The foregoing Deed of Easement was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public for and in the aforesaid Commonwealth and City, on this _________ day of _________________________, 2017, by ________________________________________________, on behalf of the School Board of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. My commission expires: ____________________ _______________________________________ Notary Public Registration #: __________________ Grantor: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By: _______________________________________ A. Michael Signer, Mayor COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA City of Charlottesville The foregoing Deed of Easement was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public for and in the aforesaid Commonwealth and City, on this _________ day of _________________________, 2017, by A. Michael Signer, Mayor, on behalf of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. My commission expires: ____________________ _______________________________________ Notary Public Registration #: __________________ Grantee: FRANCIS HARRISON FIFE RESIDENCE TRUST __________________________________________ Nancy K. O’Brien, Co-Trustee Expedition Trust Company, Co-Trustee By: ______________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA City of Charlottesville The foregoing Deed of Easement was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public for and in the aforesaid Commonwealth and City, on this _________ day of _________________________, 2017, by Nancy K. O’Brien, as Co-Trustee of the Francis Harrison Fife Residence Trust. My commission expires: ____________________ _______________________________________ Notary Public Registration #: __________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA City of Charlottesville The foregoing Deed of Easement was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public for and in the aforesaid Commonwealth and City, on this _________ day of _________________________, 2017, by ____________________________, on behalf of Expedition Trust Company, as Co- Trustee of the Francis Harrison Fife Residence Trust. My commission expires: ____________________ _______________________________________ Notary Public Registration #: __________________ This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 5, 2017 Action Required: Public Hearing and Adoption of Ordinance Presenter: S. Craig Brown, City Attorney Staff Contacts: S. Craig Brown, City Attorney Brian Haluska, Principal Planner, NDS Title: Conveyance of City Land at Intersection of Grady Avenue and Preston Avenue Background: Dairy Holdings, LLC, the owner of property on Grady Avenue commonly known as the “Monticello Dairy” site, recently discovered that a strip of land that appeared to be a part of their property at 946 Grady Avenue is at least partially owned by the City. This property (1,403 square feet in area) is partly existing unused right-of-way and partly residue land that VDOT acquired in 1974 for the Preston Avenue widening project and then quitclaimed to the City in 1979. Title to the unused right-of-way is not clear, but the residue land is City-owned (together the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property is located at the entrance to the Monticello Dairy site, and technically blocks direct access to the private roadway entrance to their property. This roadway entrance was the former Wood Street, which was acquired by street closing ordinance in 1977 and combined with the Monticello Dairy site. The exact boundary line of the former Wood Street in 1977 at this point cannot be determined, so it is possible that the unused right-of-way portion of the Subject Property was also closed in 1977 and is not owned by the City. The area has been improved and maintained by Dairy Holdings, LLC as part of the access roadway for 946 Grady Avenue. Dairy Holdings, LLC is planning to redevelop their property (located on both sides of the Subject Property), and is asking the City to convey the property to them without compensation so that it can legally be combined with their existing parcel (City Tax Map Parcel 310060000). Discussion: The property at 946 Grady Avenue is within the Central City Corridor zoning district and is a part of an entrance corridor overlay district. It is not currently being considered for any type of land use approval by the City; however, the applicant has had preliminary discussions with City staff about future development of the property. The property is designated as “Commercial” in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The addition of this land will not give the owner any substantial additional development rights. This request was reviewed administratively by the Departments of Neighborhood Development Services, Public Works, Public Utilities, Parks and Recreation and the Real Estate Assessor. There are existing City utilities (natural gas line and sanitary sewer line) that would be protected with an easement to the City incorporated within the deed of quitclaim. There is a concrete median structure (“pork chop”) and sidewalk on the subject land that basically serves the Monticello Dairy site and will be addressed when the redevelopment plan is submitted. The City has no current or anticipated uses for this property, and no Department raised any concern or reservation regarding the requested conveyance. The Real Estate Assessor valued the property at $44,900, but also commented that this land has been shown for at least 10 years on the Tax Maps as part of the Monticello Dairy site, and taxed as part of that property. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: N/A Community Engagement: The proposed conveyance has been advertised as a public hearing to allow the public an opportunity to comment on this request. Budgetary Impact: Dairy Holdings, LLC is requesting that the City land be conveyed to them without consideration. Because of its shape, location and small size, the property has no real value to anyone other than Dairy Holdings, LLC. If the City-owned land is conveyed and added to 946 Grady Avenue, the assessed value of that parcel will not increase for the reasons cited above. Recommendation: Approve the conveyance of the City-owned land to Dairy Holdings, LLC by quitclaim deed, reserving utility easements for the City utilities. Staff recommends that the Subject Property be conveyed without compensation since title to the majority of the Subject Property is unclear. Alternatives: Retain ownership of the property and deny the request for a conveyance, or offer to sell the property to Dairy Holdings, LLC for a specific amount. Attachments:  Proposed Ordinance  Survey Plat of Requested Property  Photos of Area  Wood Street Closing Ordinance (1977) 2 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAY AND LAND ADJACENT TO 946 GRADY AVENUE TO DAIRY HOLDINGS, LLC WHEREAS, Dairy Holdings, LLC, the owner of property designated as Parcel 60 on City Real Estate Tax Map 31 (946 Grady Avenue), wishes to acquire certain City right-of-way and City- owned land acquired by the City from the Commonwealth of Virginia as residue land from the Preston Avenue widening project, said land and right-of-way being shown on the attached plat dated April 28, 2017; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-1800(B), a public hearing was held to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed conveyance of the City property as requested by Dairy Holdings, LLC; and WHEREAS, the City Assessor, and Departments of Neighborhood Development Services, Public Works, Public Utilities and Parks and Recreation, have reviewed the proposed conveyance and have no objection thereto, provided that the City retain easements for existing utility lines located within the land to be conveyed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is authorized to execute a deed of quitclaim, in form approved by the City Attorney, for certain City-owned land and right-of-way, approximately 1,403 square feet in area, adjacent to Parcel 60 on City Tax Map 31, being shown on the attached plat dated April 28, 2017. The deed of quitclaim shall reserve easements for existing utility lines in locations acceptable to the Director of Public Utilities. No compensation will be due to the City for the conveyance. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to effect the closing of said property conveyance. 3 OWNER'S APPROVAL: SURVEY NOTES: 1. PROPERTY & ZONING INFORMATION: THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN IS WITH GR THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE AD Checked by: JCM Scale: 1" = 30' TMP 31-60 Y OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND AV OWNER: DAIRY HOLDINGS, LLC E. PR J.N.: 39075 . DR TRUSTEES. ANY REFERENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL REFERENCE: INST. NO. 2017001198 ES L TO . ST L DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY. ALL HI PARCEL ID NUMBER: 310060000 N ST SE RE STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT PROPERTY ADDRESS: 946 GRADY AVENUE RO AV FO TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. (ORIGINAL) AREA 4.354 AC. (189,664 SF) SITE E. ZONED: CCH N NW DA 2. THE BOUNDARY SURVEY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN L E US ST. (OWNER) DAIRY HOLDINGS, LLC DATE HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD SURVEY BY TIMMONS GROUP W RT AV ES W COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2016. E. E. .N T H 25 ST 10T ST 0 H . 9T STATE OF: 4. HORIZONTAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAD83 (NA2011), VIRGINIA . Date: April 28, 2017 RD STATE GRID, SOUTH ZONE. DATUM ESTABLISHED THROUGH COUNTY OR CITY OF: E IR LEICA SmartNET REFERENCING STATION LOY1, CHARLOTTESVILLE, JCM NT VA. CI 2 THE FOREGOING WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ON M THIS DAY OF , 2017, 5. BASED ON FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), MAP Sheet:1 of by: NW BY: NO. 51003C0286D, PANEL 286 OF 575 EFFECTIVE DATE FEBRUARY ST. 4, 2005, THE PROPERTY SHOWN LIES IN UNSHADED ZONE X, Drawn AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE 4TH YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. FLOODPLAIN. NOTARY PUBLIC 6. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT, COMMITMENT NO. 61677 FROM CHICAGO TITLE Y:\904\39075-Monticello_Dairy_Property\DWG\39075V-XPSURV_ROW_Vacation.dwg | Plotted on 5/30/2017 12:20 PM | by Joe Medley MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: VICINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ISSUED / EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 7, 2016. MAP 1" = 1000' 7. REGARDING EXISTING UTILITIES DEPICTED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND LYING IN THE CORRIDOR FORMERLY KNOWN AS WOOD STREET, THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE MAINTAINS ACITY APPROVALS: PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE & ACCESS FOR/TO SANITARY, WATER, AND GAS SERVICES LOCATED (OWNER) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DATE THEREIN. SEE DEED BOOK 382, PAGE 298. SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE TEL 540.885.0920 FAX 540.885.0786 www.timmons.com 8. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONFIGURATION SHOWN HEREON FOR GRADY STATE OF: AVENUE BASED ON DEEDS AND PLATS OF RECORD AND STATE COUNTY OR CITY OF: HIGHWAY PLANS (STATE PROJ. NO. 0250-104-101). 28 Imperial Drive | Staunton, Virginia 24401 ABANDONMENT OF WOOD STREET IMPLIES EXISTING CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE THE FOREGOING WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME ONCONFIGURATION AS SHOWN BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE EXISTING MONUMENTS AND AN ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY THIS DAY OF , 2017, PERFORMED BY THIS FIRM, DATED DEC. 7, 2016. BY: STAUNTON OFFICE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: NOTARY PUBLIC I CERTIFY THAT THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION & BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, TO THE T BEST OF MY PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PLAT SHOWING AF MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: BELIEF, IS CORRECT AND COMPLIES WITH THE MINIMUM PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE VIRGINIA STATE BOARD FOR OF ARCHITECTS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, R DAIRY HOLDINGS, LLC LAND SURVEYORS AND CERTIFIED LANDSCAPE TAX MAP PARCELS 31-60 ARCHITECTS. I ALSO CERTIFY THAT THE D 10TH & PAGE AREA BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CURRENT FIELD SURVEY. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 5, 2017 Action Required: Yes (First Reading of Ordinance) Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities Title: Quitclaim Gas Easements to VDOT (Fontana and Hyland Ridge Subdivisions) Background: In April of 2009 and May of 2013, the City acquired natural gas line easements in various roadways within the Fontana and Hyland Ridge Subdivisions in Albemarle County. The Virginia Department of Transportation is prepared to accept these roadways into the state highway system. At the request of the Gas Division, we have drafted an ordinance and deed quitclaiming to VDOT the City’s natural gas easements crossing Fontana Drive, Hyland Creek Circle, Hyland Creek Drive, Aspen Drive, and Hyland Ridge Drive. Discussion: The quitclaim deed requires the gas lines to remain in their present locations, and if the streets cease to be part of the state's highway system, the easements will automatically revert back to the City. The natural gas lines and facilities continue to be owned and maintained by the City even after the easements are quitclaimed to the state. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Not applicable. Community Engagement: Not applicable. Alternatives: If the ordinance is not approved, VDOT will not accept the roadways into its road maintenance system. Budgetary Impact: None. Recommendation: Approval of the attached ordinance and quitclaim deed. Attachments: Ordinance and Deed of Quitclaim (with plat attached). AN ORDINANCE TO QUITCLAIM NATURAL GAS LINE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE HYLAND RIDGE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is prepared to take over maintenance of the roadways known as Fontana Drive in the Fontana Subdivision and Fontana Drive, Hyland Creek Circle, Hyland Creek Drive, Aspen Drive, and Hyland Ridge Drive located in the Hyland Ridge Subdivision in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the City owns natural gas lines located within these roadways, and also owns easements for such gas lines, and VDOT has asked that the foregoing easements crossing these roadways be released upon VDOT's acceptance of the roadways; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a deed of quitclaim, substantially the same in form as the deed attached hereto, approved by the City Attorney, for release of the above-described gas line easements crossing Fontana Drive, Hyland Creek Circle, Hyland Creek Drive, Aspen Drive, and Hyland Ridge Drive to the Virginia Department of Transportation conditioned upon receipt by the City of a VDOT permit allowing said lines to continue to be located in said roadways. Prepared by S. Craig Brown, City Attorney (VSB #19286) Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 911, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Albemarle County Tax Map 78A (Fontana Drive) and 78E (Hyland Ridge Subdivision Roadways) This deed is exempt from recordation taxes pursuant to Virginia Code Secs. 58.1-811(A)(3) and 58.1-811(C)(4). DEED OF QUITCLAIM THIS DEED OF QUITCLAIM, made and entered into on this _____ day of __________________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, GRANTOR, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, GRANTEE, whose address is P. O. Box 671, Culpeper, Virginia 22701. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) cash in hand paid, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR does hereby QUITCLAIM and RELEASE to the GRANTEE, subject to the reservations hereinafter set forth, such easements and rights of way shown on the attached plat made by the City of Charlottesville Gas Division dated June 15, 2017, to construct, maintain, operate, alter, repair, inspect, protect, remove, and replace certain improvements in Fontana Drive, in the Fontana Subdivision and Fontana Drive, Hyland Creek Circle, Hyland Creek Drive, Aspen Drive, and Hyland Ridge Drive in the Hyland Ridge Subdivision in the County of Albemarle, namely: Natural gas lines and related gas facilities upon and across Fontana Drive, Hyland Creek Circle, Hyland Creek Drive, Aspen Drive, and Hyland Ridge Drive, insofar as the lands embraced within said easements fall within the boundaries of a public street or highway to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Said gas line easements were conveyed to the City by the following deeds: (1) Deed of Easement from the County of Albemarle, Virginia, dated May 16, 2013, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 4352 at page 411; and (2) Deed of Easement from Pantops-Lakeridge, LLC, dated March 23, 2009, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 3722 at page 464. The Grantor reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, all of the rights and privileges under the aforesaid Deed of Easement until such time as the Virginia Department of Transportation has issued a permit to the GRANTOR subject to the following two conditions which shall also be covenants running with the land: 1. That the above described improvements of the GRANTOR may continue to occupy such streets or highways in the existing condition and location. 2. The GRANTOR shall at all times indemnify and save harmless the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, its employees, agents, and officers from any claim whatsoever arising from GRANTOR'S exercise of rights or privileges stated herein. The GRANTEE is to have and hold the above-described property for so long as said property is used as part of its public street or highway maintained by the GRANTEE or its successors or assigns charged with the responsibility and obligation to maintain public streets and highways, but upon abandonment of said property's use for such purposes, all rights, privileges, interests and easements in the property herein described under aforesaid Right of Way Easement shall revert to the GRANTOR, its successors and assigns. Notwithstanding other language contained herein which might appear to the contrary, the parties agree that GRANTOR shall continue to own in fee simple the gas line improvements located within the above described public roadways. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the GRANTOR has caused its name to be assigned hereto and its seal to be affixed and attested by its appropriate officers, all after due authorization, on the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA BY: _______________________________ A. Michael Signer, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Clerk of Council STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE I, ___________________________, a Notary Public in and for the City of Charlottesville within the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that A. Michael Signer, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, and Paige Rice, its Clerk of Council, whose names are signed to the foregoing writing, bearing date of _____________________, 2017, have each duly acknowledged the same before me within my City and State aforesaid. My Commission Expires: _________________________ Given under my hand this _________ day of _______________________, 2017. ____________________________________ Notary Public Registration #____________ This page intentionally left blank. The M.A.O.P. of 2" P.E. pipe is 99 P.S.I. which is <20% S.M.Y.S. When installed minimum depth was 42" below paved surfaces and 36" in grassy areas. The M.A.O.P. of 2" P.E. pipe is 99 P.S.I. 1 04 which is <20% S.M.Y.S. E- 78 5 6 78 E- 10 When installed minimum depth was 10 78 E- 1 01 42" below paved surfaces and E- 78 0 36" in grassy areas. 10 E- 78 9 -90 8 8E E- 78 7 91 E- 9 9 78 E- 88 E- 78 78 92 -53 E- 8E 78 93 5 7 7 2 - -8 86 -8 -5 8E E E- E E 7 98 78 78 78 78 E- 54 78 E- 0 78 -84 -7 -69 - 51 9 4 8E 8E 8E 8E E- 7 7 7 7 78 97 E- 78 1 - 55 83 7 8E 5 109 - E- 7 E- 9 E- 78 E 78 50 78 78 E- 96 78 E- 0 78 11 2 72 E- -8 E- 78 E 78 5 6 9 78 E -6 8 E- E -4 78 78 78 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 5, 2017 Action Required: Public Hearing and Ordinance to approve sale of City land Presenter: Brian Daly, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Chris Gensic, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Title: Approval of Sale of Baylor Lane Lot Background: The City purchased the last remaining lot in the Carter’s View subdivision in order to secure the lower portion of the property for parkland, trails and stormwater management purposes. The upper portion of the lot was subdivided from the lower portion in February 2017, is buildable and is not needed for public use. A public hearing and an Ordinance is required to authorize the sale of the property. Discussion: In 2014 the City acquired a large parcel of land at 162 Baylor Lane that included a lot near the Baylor Lane cul-de-sac (“Subject Property”), and an adjoining lot that contained wetlands and an area for park and trail use. The intention has been to sell the buildable lot to recover costs of the initial acquisition and/or apply the sale proceeds towards the purchase of additional land near Jordan Park. A critical slopes waiver was approved by Council on the Subject Property in April 2017 in order to make the Subject Property compliant with the Carter’s View building requirements. The critical slopes waiver also included a requirement for a pedestrian access easement to be located entirely within the existing storm drainage easement on the lot. The Subject Property has been marketed through a Request for Bids, which was sent to the owners of adjoining properties, the Blue Ridge Builders Association, and Southern Development (developer of Carter’s View Subdivision). The Request for Bids was published in the newspaper, on the City website, and a sign was posted on the Subject Property. Bids were accepted through June 9, 2017, and the high bid was received from Southern Property, LLC. The attached Purchase Agreement has been signed by Southern Property, LLC, with sale conditioned on Council approval. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s “Green City” and “Quality Housing Opportunities for All” vision. It contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan, to be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community, and objective 2.5, to provide natural and historic resources stewardship. Community Engagement: The public hearing is required by law and gives the public the opportunity to comment on the sale. Budgetary Impact: Proceeds of the sale will be returned to the Parkland Acquisition Fund to be used to purchase an adjacent property for parkland and trail use. This adjacent property will be combined with other parcels to enlarge Jordan Park Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the sale of the buildable lot on Baylor Lane. Alternatives: If the lot is not sold, it will require maintenance by the City, and the proceeds from the sale of this property will prevent the City from purchasing additional land for park purposes. Attachments: Plat of Subject Property Request for Bids Proposed Ordinance Purchase Agreement NOTES: 1.) Source of meridian for bearings is based upon NAO 83 based on GPS observations performed by Draper Aden Associates. 2.) The property shown hereon is located in Flood Zone X as shown on FIRM panel FM51003C0288D effective date February 4, 2005. 3.) This is a compiled plat. Boundary information is based on the plat o record. 4.) This survey was prepared without the benefit of a Title Report anO may not show all the encumbrances on the property. 5.) Physical improvements, contours, sanitary, storm lines, and water lines are shown per GIS. 6.) Contour !nterva! = 2' 7.) Topographic Information was provided by others and is shown for informational purposes only. 8.) This Survey was prepared for the City of Charlottesville and Draper Aden Associates assumes no liability for reuse or modification of this document. 9.) Section 29-161(b)(1) allows City-owned property to have no street frontage. No building permit shall be issued for Parcel "B" unless it is combined with another parcel so that it gains frontage and satisfies minimum lat requirements. 10.) The proposed Parcels meet criteria for critical slopes, per Section 34-1120(b). 2-11-17 Chair Date Secretary of Planning Commission Date The platting or dedication of the following described land Tax Map 26 Parcel 45 is with free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned owners, proprietors and trustees of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. )-/J-1) City Date Signed before me, in COMPILED PLAT SHOWING MINOR DIVISION TAX MAP 26, PARCEL 45 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SHEET 1of4 ~C>o., Draper Aden Associates DRAWN: GAS SCALE: AS SHOWN C *" Engineering -+ SUl'Veying-+ Environmental Services CHECKED; DATE: REV: 01102/2015 10/19/2016 700 Harris Street, Suite E Blacksburg, VA Charlottesville, VA 434-295-0700 Fax: 434-295-2105 Richmond, VA Hampton Roads, VA PLAN NO. C14160C-01 S LEGEND • • • • • • • • • • • • • Floodplain -·-·-·-Floodway D Storm Structure ------------------------ Stream Buffer .0 Fire Hydrant e Water Meter ® Water Valve - ss-@-- s s - Son. Manhole - w/ San. line ~\.'IR O}i' /? VICINITY MAP Scale: 1=1000' l~~ Lie. No. 2425 10-19-2016 ADJOINING OWNERS TM 26-45.5 DAVID H & CHRISTINA S WEISS DB 2011-2060 TM 26-45.6 WILLIAM F & ASHLEY B JOHNSTON CURRENT ZONING: DB 2009-4851 TM 26·45: Zone R-1S TM 26-45.7 KURT & SUSAN J JORDAN DB 2009-5498 1.) Required Front Yard - TM 26-45.8 25', min.* On any lot where 40% or AHMAD FASHANDI & ANNA ZIMMERMAN more of the lots located within 500' in DB 2014-1548 either direction, fronting on the same TM 26-45.9 side of the street, have front yards CLINT C & ANDREA L WILDER greater or less than the minimum DB 2014-891 front yard, the required front yard shall be the average depth of the TM 26-45.11 existing front yards within 500'. CHANTAL ELIZABETH JENNINGS DB 2014-3302 2.) Required Side Yard - TM 26-45.12 DAVID KOEHN & ASHLEY MATTHEWS SFD: 5' minimum DB 2008-5547 Non-Res.: 50' minimum TM 26-45.13 Corner, street side: 20' minimum. MICHELLE KISLIUK DB 2009-433 3.) Required Rear Yard - ALB. TM 77-7 Res.: 25' minimum CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DB 4462-562, PG. 567-573 PLAT Non-Res.: 50' minimum TM 26-67 CHARLES A Ill & KENDALL YOUNG TITLE REFERENCE: WB 30-351 TM 26-45 TM 26-43B Owner: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ROY'S PLACE LLC DB 2014-2729 DB 1022-755 DB 1117-239-248 PLAT COMPILED PLAT SHOWING MINOR DIVISION TAX MAP 26, PARCEL 45 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SHEET2 of 4 .~ Draper Aden Associates DRAWN: GAS SCALE: AS SHOWN C "* Engineering -t Surveying• Envircmme11tal Services CHECKED: DATE: REV: 01/02/2015 10/19/2016 700 Harris Street, Suite E Blacksburg, VA Charlottesville, VA Richmond, VA PLAN NO. 434-295-0700 Fax: 434-295-2105 Hampton Roads, VA C14160C-01S SHEET3 of 4 DRAWN: GAS SCALE: 1·.. 50· CHECKED: DATE: 01/02/2015 REV: 10/1912016 CURVE TABLE CURVE IRAD!US IARC LENGTH !DELTA ANGLE !CHORD LENGTH !CHORD BEARING C1 11235.00' 150.05' 12"19'18" 150.04' !SJ2'J5'04"W C2 11235.00' 150.07' 12·19'22" 150.06' iS34'54'24"W \ TM 26-45.5 - \ TM 26-45.6 w i;; 1--~~- - ~-- - - -----n- p i11l""''' WRIGHT BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC 315 lOTH STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN "'' MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING CHARlOITESVILLE, VA 22~2 CMARLOTT£SVILLE, VA.l2902 s·liJ ffi£PHON'E:(4),)1171-7202 ll:UPHONE: {4~) ;>g]-l71!1 DE MAIO, THOMAS J 934E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22901 DN OFFICE BUILDING ~IJlZl\'XX) PEOPLE PLACES INCORPORATED 1002 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 12902 DN OFFICE BUILDING 1'1C:!tun, , tMP sw121ooo !.«) .........~ MILBY, JOSEPH T & LINDSAY 100<1 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 12902 DN OFFICE BUILDING 1011 E JEfFERSON Sll!EET ~01:11~ CRESS, ROY L, TRUSTEE 1006 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING CKAALOTT(SVILlE, V/>, 2Z'i02 !MI I CHANCEY, RIEBELING, SMILEY & WILEY, LLC 1008 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION 0t PROJECT: 1011 E JEFTERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILL£, VA 22QD2 §;!Ul311.N).l 1014EJS, LLC 1014 E. JEF~ERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING mv.t.,rOIV,OttT!DI m:!.IL~U!AJ.aQ![]Ij )4rJllJ,J;);J MOE,LLC 1020 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING Ml ll!IGW n~ &-1 S40J(o8JOO AJGAONKAR, ASHOK D 1100 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 B·l MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING EXI'STIHC US£: l.lftit'l.l, OJT't:E-ftll{l:Vo~C ~ lrw, iqiJJ.Qt WAJo:IMU~ Of" 126 ~ULllF~~ILY OWEUING IJt,l/lS (1 ...... 0 2 BEDROOI.I UNIT'S) >Ull~ LAMAR, PHILIPS S TR-EJEFF LDTR 1101 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 B·l OFFICE BUILDING il'trw. l.rR: ~~ A SP[CUL USE Pmt.trr I'S ft£11«; 'SOUGHT FOR N-1 1!-ICil[J.S£ IN DENSITY (65 DUA. - 87 DUA) S4DJ2!1Ji;l:J B·l OFFICE BUILDING PROPOSED DENSITY: NOTE: 1-21 OUo\ CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR 14~ ACRES~ 87 QUA • ~ENTW. BY-RIGifT ON rnt: PROPERTY W.X OF 126 UNITS TO BE AUCNIUl WIIH THIS SP£CIN.. USE PEJli.IIT IJ.U:II.IULI OF 180 BEDftOOioiS (50S OF THE DWEWNG ~ITS SIW_l BE 2 BEOROOU UNITS) ""''"""" \ STORUWA.TER W.t-w;EMENT EXrSTlHC SITE IS PRIYARILY IW'EINIOUS RAIN GARDENS, UNOERGROIJN{) OCTE:NilON, YARD SWALES, AND PEJMOUS PAVERS ARE PROPOSED FOR STORUWA.TER QU.IUTY t.H0 OCTENTION FOR WAT£R OUAUTY ON TllE SITE In) TO REDUCE THE POSl DEVELOI"AENT R\JHOFf RATES VOWWES. AND l)l[ SITE TO PRCMD£ ... ...aocmES FRQI.IlHE SITE SlOE:NOtiEREOU1REO(AlW.CENTTOEXISTINGB-1PROPERT'f) RrAR: NONE RECUIRED (ADJACENT TO EXISTING B-1 PROPERT'f) ~5 F'EET (BUIL.DINC SH.Iil 1-'EET THE I.WI:I~Uiol HEIGHT REOUIREME~ IN -'C'CORONICE 1\'llH THE EXISTING \ ~~~ ---=- ---------------~--~~----;~ ~ 'FWu. eottC~ 111"! l iD£WAlK' 1 CITY COO£) 1)0,000 +/-Sf" - \ I WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2% SLOPE SHAll EXTEND TMP 54-126 J PROJECT TO BE OC\IELOPEO IN (1) PHASE: Nl'ORIJABI...[ OWEWNG UNITS StW..L BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY ZONING OR[)jN.A.NC£ SECTION H-1~, ACROSS THE 1 AI.J. E:Y)PAI\Il:M\" E~lrA~ rU NO PROPOSED • ® .l ··. · d~.o'l\;·- __ ll Nll'l 11..- -..n Jlw,~ IJTIO fir. n....,.tn ~ 011' (fl'IITt. ······t.~\ CONNECTION S"'I''JO"E lH[R£ ARE NO FtOOOPI.JriN LIMITS WITHIN THE S.U8JECT PROPERlY PfFI F'EW. IW'I5100JC02B90, PNI ON THIS PROPERlY TW.T IS PROI'OSEil FOR PUBLIC USE: WATER DO.IANOS/FIRE FLOW: CUJIA£tm.Y THERE IS ,._ ORE H'I1>AANT AT THE IHlERSE:CliON OF E JEFfERSON SffiEET AND 111H STREET N§ ill. I'Jflt~t ,~o l Ul. MIJII"liiil:;n ~ U L 4UriJIS!'H ra-a'! •>~:~ 111111 'tf![l] ~ ttl.t 1b1Yt nq r'IIOMJITY, 111[ IWL(.('MD Ifi lL!.. lli i!O UM'{ • .JI'WIIIJIU.f!! nm:w ~ nrE "'!!I'lttl!ltll !/ - IN'GRESSN«JEGRESS: ACCESS TO BijLDf.l(; PNtlIO Til£ Fl)(llJftE SHIILL coYPI..£TD...Y COtiCEAL N'IO R£C(SS THE LKiHT SOUR!:( r~ All VIE'Wih'G POSITIONS EXCEPT THO'iE I l!J ::E cr. POSITIONS PE~ITTED :1111:: TIIP (!£NCMUt'fllltiO INIQ US£ Itt. CElli;: TIR EI!milllll !Ill tiW'rtr; Uo. ~ ·. ~RW'J1!1Wl (") I :J.liWI! l\if.tlfUII'ill( l lll"r u [ll ~, ~ 5NCi:PDt~,~~~tr-I~'~"~SI'o&aS~ I - _J 12GAPARTt.IENT$•6J~LEPARKINCi!I.*CKS i' i w N <( ~ TOTALPARKIHOSPACESREOIJIR£0; t26SPACES ... IIJBICYCLERAO z ~II 11 1111 11 (/) w ,M"-!IZHIJIIIC .urt~1~ t lf'.3pot,U.t.IIEt.GMSatufr"!lfH JI-I\Iil.m'b. A TEI.tPOIWn' STRUT ClDSURE PERt.IIT IS 'iUBJECTTOAPPftOVALBYlHECfNTR.AITICE!iGINEER.. R£QU~Dl FUR a.ostiR£ Of 510EWALI-- -' 1. PROPOSED CONTOUR 24055 PROPOSED SPOT Elf"VATION ~ TBC DENOTES TOP/BACK OF CURB T/9 OCNOTE:S TOP OF BOX Exhibit D Suggested Conditions of Approval dated June 12, 2017 6 PLEASE NOTE THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT Recommended Conditions June 12, 2017 Staff recommends that a request for higher density could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Up to 87 dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the subject property. A maximum of 180 bedrooms shall be allowed on the subject property.IUo to 50% of the dwelling units shall be two (2) bedroom units. Na A"tare thaR twa (2) ~-JRrelatea 13ersaRs A"ta't' resiae iR aRy ~-JRit. leasing st~uc ture and lease agreements w ill not allow units to be lea sed by th e bedroo m o r to have mult iple leases per ·unit with sha red living spaces. [ ______ .. · Commented [ADl]: In lhis condition, the applicant has inserted an additional component to limit the number of two bedroom units The reference to two unrelated persons has 2. Affordable housing units as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-12 shall be provided on-site or on been deleted due to the potential connie! with the Federal Fair property zoned In the Downtown or Downtown North Mixed Use Corridors. Housing Act Instead, leasing agreements have been addressed to reduce the likelihood of students renting at this location 3. No demolition of existing building(s) or improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of a final site plan and approval of a permit authorizing land-disturbing activities pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 10-9. For purposes of Chapter 10 of the City Code, demolition activities shall be planned and built into the erosion & sediment control plan and stormwater management plan (if required), as part of the overall development plan for the subject property, and no such demolition activity shall be undertaken as a standalone activity. 4. The design, height, and other cha ract eri stics o'f the development shall be In general accord. reMai A esseAtla l l~me,tA afl mateFia l a$pem, ~~~~~_ri~_e? ~itJ:l!n the a_p_pli~~~ion ·-· • Commented [AD2]: 'In general accord' represents standard legal language incorporated into Conditional Zonings and materials received from February 16, 2016 until June 12, 2017, submitted to the City for and in Special Use Permits connection with SP16-00001, including the site plan received June 12, 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment C) and updated building massing materials submitted June 12, 2017 (Updated Attachment E). Conceptual Plan by Collins Engineering dated February 16, 2016, last revised June 9, 2017 (the "Concept Plan") • Special Use Permit Project Proposal Narrative dated September 16, 2016, as updated by materials submitted to the City on June 12, 2017 • Building Massing Materials submitted to the City on June 12, 2017 Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with staff comments, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any change to the development that is inconsistent with ~he essential elements of the application shall require a modification of this SUP. These eharaeteristies essential elements li nc!~.d~:________ , __ ___ ......... .. .. ____ __ .. ___ ... _______ • ----· __ •• -·· Commented [AD3]: The insertion of essential elements further clarifies how the pian must be in general accord a. Two (2) open air courtyards in the front and rear of the building, with the front courtyard visible from E. Jefferson Street. b. Three (3) plazas in the provided site plan- one (1) along the entire lOth Street, NE frontage, one (1) at the corner of lOth Street, NE and E. Jefferson Street, and one (1) at the corner of 11th Street, NE and E. Jefferson Street. c. Direct pedestrian access to ~Ae iRterRal aeeess S'fSteFR ef ~he pr_-reqlljreel miR-iffiVffl 20 ~et setba~iftwm e'f 40% ell-1{)11t-~~R~II>-Street N ~, wl~h aR allewaRee ef a 10% EleviatieR frem this minimllm. ~dditional building setbacks on .• Commented [ADS]: This condition has been simplified Ia reference the Concept Plan, while also providing minor lOth Street, NE, 11th Street, NE, and E. Jefferso~-St~-~~1:-i~g~~~~~~ -~~~~-r"d"~lth__ _ neXIbllily for the site plan review the Concept Plan, with an allowance of 10% deviation from what is shown thereon. e. ~A aEIEiitienall91llleliRg set19aell at least 25 feet 19eyeREI tile reqwireel miRimwm S (fi\'e) feet setl!lael1 fer a miAimwm ef ~§% eA !;; JefferseR Street, 'o't'ith aA allewaRee ef a lG% Ele.,.iatieR frem this miRimwm, aREI witll tile remaiAEier ef tile BllileliRg eeiAg seteaek at least 1§ feet ee•1•eAEI tile reqwireel miAimwm five (5) feet seteaek eR !;; JefferseA Street.l __ f. e. An additional building stepback at least 10 feet from the required minimum l Commented [AD&]: This condition was removed because !he infonnalion is covered in condllion 4d. 20 feet setback on the entirety of any building story above the second (2nd) floor fronting 11th Street, NE, and an additional building stepback of at least 25 feet from the required minimum five (5) feet setback on the entirety of any building story above the second (2nd) floor fronting E. Jefferson Street, and an additional building stepback of at least 10 feet from the setback applied to the bottom two(2) stories on the entirety of any building story above the second (2nd) story along the northern side of the building. 5. Street trees shall be a minimum of three (3) inch caliper at planting. Regardless of canopy size, street trees shall be spaced no more than~§ feet a~art eA tile 10~~>--street NE ~lit-Street ~IE freAtages, aREI Ae mere thaA ~5 feet a~art eR theE JefferseA Street freAtage 35 feet apart on all frontages .[ ____ _______ _ __________ __ Commented [AD7]: This condition has been modified to allow for !he adequate spacing of larger streellrees in an urban location. 6. The applicant shall provide pedestrian improvements In the vicinity of the subject property, the dimension and fina l design of which is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. These Improvements shal l be designed so that adequate space shall remain for the potentia l future Installation of bicycle lanes on toth Street. NE. These improvements shall include: a. Provide an improved pedestrian path on 10th Street, NE along the entire frontage of the subject property. This will consist of a widened sidewalk with a minimum of seven (7) feet in width. If the widened sidewalk extends into the subject property, the sidewalk area shall be donated to the City for addition to the public right-of-way and a reduction of two (2) feet shall be applied to all setbacks and step backs required for lOth Street NE by both Z.O. Sec. 34-457 and conditions Sc and Se above.[he acreage of the existing project parcel at the time of Special Use Perrhit approva l shall be the aareage utilized to ca lcu late the maximum densltv allowed, even If part of the oarcells donat ed to the CitV.! __ _ _______ ______ ---------------- --------------- -----·-· Commented [ADS]: Addillonallanguage regarding pro]oct density has bean added Ia insure !hal the applicant Is not b. Install curb extensions extending into the intersection of lOth Street NE and E penalized lor additional dedication or land to tho publi~ Jefferson Street adjacent to the subject property on both sections of the staggered intersection, as shown in the provided site plan received June 12, PLEASE NOTE THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment C). Curb extensions shall include perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crosswalk. A receiving curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. c. Install curb extensions extending into the intersection of 11th Street NE and E Jefferson Street adjacent to the subject property, as shown in the provided site plan received June 12, 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment C). Curb extensions shall include perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crossing. A receiving curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. d. !Replace the existing two-way stop sign located at the intersection of 11th Street NE and little High Street with a new two-way stop sign that shall stop traffic traveling on little High Street, instead of stopping traffic traveling on 11th Street NE. The replacement of the existing two-way stop sign shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. I__ .... __ ______ -------- ------ _-------------- --~-- __ .,.,, ________ ----·-· Commented [SN9]: AddiUanallanguage regarding change in traffic now altha 11~ Street NE and LiHia High Street e. !Install curb extensions extending Into the intersection of 11th Street NE and little High inloriectlon asru~mrnenttetl II'Qm 111e MuiU·Way Stop Watrsnt AnalyJIS, lound In lhe most recently updmed Yrnffi<~ Street. Curb extensions shall include perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each Study Tha qhanga '" traffic now le dllSIQO~~ to address pedestrian crossing. A receiving curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the wru;!lrns rnlsed by represe~tellves or lliO LIIOe High Nolgnborhood As&ociaUon lhellraffic was travelling lao fast opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. Install high visibility crosswalk at the tlirough LiHie Hlg~ ' Street pedestrian crossing at the 11th Street NE and little High Street intersection. All pedestrian Intersection improvements at the 111h Street NE and little High Street intersection shall be substantially similar In form and design as shown for those intersections immediately adjacent to the subject property in the provided site plan received June 12, 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment q .l_ ___ _________________ .- Commented [SI'UO]: Addllfonallanguoge regardl!lll pedeslnan lmprov&rnants ol the 11'" Street NE al'ld LltUe High f. Install high visibility crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings immediately adjacent to the Sirllot lllterseclloo so was also recommended lrom lila Multi· subject property, at both the lOth Street NE and E Jefferson Street and 11th Street NE and Way Stop W~n11nt Analysis, found lnth~ rno~lrec:anUy UJ>d61~d Tr'lffiC Study. SuCil rmprovemim!s. sucll a_s curb bulb E Jefferson Street intersections, as shown in the provided site plan received June 12, ouls, are da$lgned to reduce tl)e distance ol pedestrtan cro&swlllko and lncreaso 1119 VlsiDiiity of stroh crosswalks, 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment C). which enhances pedestrian .sorely. e. Continue the concrete sidewalk across all proposed driveway/alley entrances in full width and at a maximum two (2) percent cross slope, as shown in the provided site plan received June 12, 2017, last revised June 9, 2017 (Updated Attachment C). 7. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. 8. The spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (Yz) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. 9. No vehicular access to the subject property shall be permitted from the existing alley connecting the rear of the property to Little High Street. 9 PLEASE NOTE THESE CONDITIONS ARE SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT 10. No more than one (1) vehicular access point may be established on nth Street, NE, unless additional access points on 11th Street, NE are determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be appropriate. 11. Conform to Z.O. Sec. 34-881{2)-Bicycle Storage Facilities or the most current Bicycle Storage Facilities code for multi-family dwellings at time of development. 12. Low impact development techniques such as rain gardens and permeable pavers shall be installed on the subject property with the redevelopment of the site. 32905051_3 10 Exhibit E Building Renderings: Updated Design June 2017 11 1011 EAST JEFFERSON STREET June 12, 2017 View from intersection of 1Oth Street NE and East Jefferson Street AQCHITEC T ~ 1 1011 EAST JEFFERSON STREET June 12, 2017 View from intersection of 11th Street N E and East Jefferson. Street 2 1011 EAST JEFFERSON STREET June 12, 2017 ~-~-~-- View from EaSt Jefferson Street looking north AR C HITECTS 3 1011 EAST JEFFERSON STREET June 12, 2017 View from East Jefferson Street looking north towards Courtvard and T! Rl!NN I NGSEN KESTNER 4 0 C •I I t • ~ 4 1011 EAST JEFFERSON STREET June 12, 2017 View from 10th Street NE showing East Jefferson Street perspective and buildinQ transition 5 Exhibit G Summary Memo of Traffic Study dated May 22, 2017 17 WILLIAMS MULLEN MEMORANDUM TO: Carrie Rainey FROM: Williams Mullen DATE: June 12, 2017 RE: East. Jefferson Place -Traffic Study Summary The following is a summary of the attached Traffic Impact Analysis (the "Traffic Study") prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc., a well-regarded professional tratl'ic engineering firm in the area (the Traffic Engineers"). The Traffic Engineers have previously ubmitted the Traffic Study to Brennan Duncan under separate cover, but we thought a . ummary might be helpful for you and others interested in the Project. The Traffic Study has three key parts outlined below: 1) Vehicular Trip Generation Estimates, 2) Street Capacity Analysis, and 3) Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis. The first section of the Traffic Study estimates how many average vehicle trips per day are expected at the site from the proposed development. Such estimates were made by using the methodologies of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manuel - 9th dtition, which is the industry standard for traffic studies (the "Trip Generation Manuel ). The Traffic Study concluded that only two additional vehicular trips per day are expected ft·om the proposed development as compa.red to the number of average daily vehicular trips generated from the existing medicaJ office use. Two field studies were made to verify such assumptions: (1) vehi.cl s were manually counted at a sim ilarly situated apartment complex, located 1,12 mile from the proposed development (the City Walk Apartments) and (2) vehicles were manually counted at two local coffee shops (Shenand ab Joe's and Milli Coffee Roasters, both located on Preston A venue). The econd ection fthe Traffic Study use standard industry software to estimate delays (measured Ln seconds) and vehicular que length (measured in feet) at each iu tersecti.on suJTo unding the proposed development. To generate such estimates the Traffic Engineers mu t input the project s estimated average daily vehicular trip generation. Even though standard industry practice and ft.e ld observations confirmed the justification for the above assumptions, when inputting th project's average daily vehicular tTip generation, the Traffic Engineers did not make such assumptions so as to be cettain that the surrounding streets could handle traffic vo llllnes at an fathomable level. The number of average daily vehicular trips inputted in the street capacity anaJy i so ftware wa at lea t 684 more vehicle trips than what is actua lly expected at tbe site. Nevertheless, the Traffic Engineers estimated that the urrounding inter ections will have delays f le s than 30 second and que lengths of two vehicles at mo t operating at the high levels of service. The third section of the Traffic Study analyzed tra[fic at the intersection of 11 1h Street NE and Little High Street. Representatives of the Littl.e High Neighborhood Associations expressed concems with vehkular speed at Little High Street. The Traffic Study conducted a 'multi-way stop warrant ana lys is" the first step necessary for the installation of a four-way stop. While uch analysis revea led that the intersection does not meet the Virginia Department of Transportation s requirements for the installation of a four-way 18 WILLIAMS MULLEN stop sign, the Traffic Engineers recommended switching the current configuration so that Little High Street Traffic must stop and yield to 11th Street NE traffic, thus reducing vehicular speeds of thru-traffic on Little High Street. The Traffic Study also recommended certain upgrades to the sidewalk and the installation of a highly visible crosswalk. Further details can be found in the Traffic Study. 32320010_7 19 Exhibit J Traffic Study dated May 22, 2017 20 R.A MEY KEMP & ASSOCIATES.'"'' 4343 Cox Road Glsn All9n, VA 23060 Phone ; 804-217-8560 Fex; 804-217-8563 www.rameykemp .com ------------------------- May 22, 20I7 Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. City of Charlottesvi lie 6I 0 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone: (434) 970-3I82 Reference: East Jefferson Street Apartments- Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Duncan, Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. (RKA) has performed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to support the proposed redevelopment of the property on the north side of East Jefferson Street between I 0 111 Street NE and II 111 Street NE. The property currently has a 20,300 square foot (s.f.) medical office building, with two full-movement driveways on East Jefferson Street, and one full-movement driveway on I 0 1h Street NE. The proposed redevelopment includes replacing the medical office building with I26 apartment units, up to 8,000 s.f. of specialty retail space, and a 2,000 s.f. coffee I donut shop without a drive-through window. The proposed access plan includes removing both driveways on East Jefferson Street, and adding one new full- movement driveway on I I th Street NE. The plan includes constructing a two-level below-grade parking deck with 246 spaces . If approved, the redevelopment is expected to be complete in 2019. Figure I shows the site location and study intersections. The purpose of this letter report is to provide the following: • Trip generation calculations • Trip generation study at City Walk Apartments • Trip generation study at two local coffee shops • Capacity analysis of study intersections • Multi-way stop analysis for the intersection of Little High Street at 1 I 111 Street Existing Roadway Conditions I 0 111 Street N E is a two-lane local collector with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 4,000 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of25 mph across the property frontage. East Jefferson Street is a two-lane local collector with an ADT volume of approximately 1,700 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of25 mph across the property frontage. ------------------------- Charleston, SC- Charlotte, NC- Raleigh, NC- Richmond, VA- Winston-Salem, NC Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 2 of12 11th Street NE is a two-lane local collector with an ADT volume of approximately 1,500 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of25 mph across the property frontage. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing 2016 AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00PM) turning movement counts were conducted by RKA and Burns Service, Inc. at the following intersections during the week of September 12, 2016: • 1oth Street NE at East Jefferson Street • 11th Street NEat East Jefferson Street • East Jefferson Street at three existing medical office driveways Burns Service, Inc. also performed a 14-hour (6:00AM to 8:00 PM) turning movement count at the following intersection during the week of May 8, 2017: • Little High Street at 11th Street NE The existing peak hour volumes were increased and balanced between the study intersections, and are shown in Figure 2. All of the traffic count data is enclosed for reference. Background Traffic Growth The existing medical office trips were removed from the existing driveways, but those trips were not subtracted from the main intersections. Additionally, based on a review of the 2012 and 2015 ADT' s, the existing 2016 peak hour traffic volumes were grown by an annual rate of 3.0% for three years to estimate the 2019 no-build traffic volumes, which are shown in Figure 3. Based on discussion with the City, we understand there are no approved developments near this site. --------------------------- ~RAM EY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 3 ofl2 Trip Generation The trip generation potential of the proposed redevelopment during a typical weekday, AM peak hour and PM peak hour was estimated using the methodologies published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual - 9111 Edition. Table 1 shows the trip generation potential of the proposed redevelopment. Table 1 ITE' T. f Iflon- w ee kd ay rtJ) enera Ion- 9 1h Ed'. G A er<\gc Daily Tnlffic AM Peal< J-loul· PM Peak Hour Land Use ( ph) ( .ph) Size (vpd) (ITE Land Use Code) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Proposed Uses Apartments 126 units 419 419 13 51 51 28 (220) Specialty Retail Center 8,000 s.f. 190 I90 4 2 I8 23 (826) Coffee I Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window 2,000 s.f. 748 748 Ill I06 4I 41 (936) Subtotal I ,357 1,357 128 I 59 II 0 92 lTE Internal Capture- 8% AM I 37% PM -305 -305 -1I -11 -37 -37 Driveway Volumes 1,052 1,052 117 I48 73 55 ITE Pass-By Trips: Specialty Retail - 34% -50 -50 -0 -0 -4 -4 Coffee I Donut Shop- 49% AM I 50% PM* -287 -287 -48 -48 -I2 -I2 33% Adjustment for -347 -347 -38 -48 -24 -I8 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Trips Net New External Trips 368 368 31 52 33 21 Existing Use Medical Office 20,300 s.f. 366 366 39 IO 20 52 (720) Net Change in External Trips +2 +2 -8 +42 +13 -31 * ITE does not publish pass-by rates for coffee I donut shops. In this case, the pass-by rates for a fast-food restaurant were applied . It is reasonable to assume that the actual pass-by rates for coffee I donut shops are _______________ _________ _ s ignificantly higher, which would resu lt in fewer new trips. ........, ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 4 of 12 Note that the existing medical office trips were not subtracted out ofthe background traffic volumes at the study intersections. Specialty retai I space and coffee I donut shops attract pass-by trips, which are made by drivers who are already driving by the site today, and will visit these uses in the future because they are convenient. Table 1 shows the ITE pass-by trip adjustments that could be applied. In this case, the pass-by adjustments were not applied, which results in more new trips in the traffic projections. Note that the trip generation of the coffee I donut shop is based on the ITE trip rates, which are significantly higher than expected with the proposed coffee shop because most of the shops surveyed by ITE are part of large chains, and located on major thoroughfares. The proposed shop will likely be locally-owned and focused on serving the neighborhood. To confirm, RKA counted two local coffee shops, and those results are presented later in this report. Trip Generation Study at City Walk Apartments A traffic count was conducted by Burns Service, Inc. at the intersection of Water Street at City Walk Way during the week of September 12, 2016. The purpose of the count was to determine an appropriate pedestrian reduction by comparing similar apartments in Charlottesville. Table 2 shows a comparison of the trip generation potential of City Walk Apartments based on the ITE trip rates, and the actual traffic counts. Table 2 City Walk Apartments T' np G eneratwn C ompanson- . 91h Ed'.1t10n- wee kd ay A cntgc Onil AM Peak Flour J)M Peak Hour Land Use Traffic Size (vll(l) Vph ph) (ITE Land Use Code) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartments 301 units 974 974 30 121 119 64 (220) Actual Counts 301 units - - 10 88 69 30 - - -67% -27(Yo -42% -53% Compared to ITE - - -35% -46°f«, The number of vehicle trips entering and exiting City Walk Apartments is approximately 35% lower than what !TE predicts during the AM peak hour, and approximately 46% lower during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the 33% adjustment shown in Table I for the proposed East Jefferson Street apartments is reasonable. However, in this case, the reduction was not applied, which results in more new trips in the traffic projections. - ...... ------~--~-------------- ~AMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 5 of12 Trip Generation Study at Local Coffee Shops An AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00AM) pedestrian count was conducted by Burns Service, Inc. at two local coffee shops during the week of April 24 to determine an appropriate trip generation rate for the proposed coffee shop. Shenandoah Joe's is a 3,200 s.f. coffee shop on Preston Avenue at I oth Street NW, and Milli Coffee Roasters is a I ,800 s.f. coffee shop located on Preston Avenue at Mcintire Road. Table 3 shows a comparison of the trip generation potential of the local coffee I donut shops based on the ITE trip rates, and the actual traffic counts. Table 3 Local Coffee Shops np G enera f1011 T' I IOn- w ee kd ay C ompanson- 9111 Ed'f AM Peak HoUI' Location Size (vph) Enter Exit ITE Trip Generation for Coffee I Donut Shop 3,200 s.f. 177 170 without Drive-Through Window (936) Shenandoah Joe's- Preston Avenue 3,200 s.f. 76 70 ITE Trip Generation for 3,200 s.f. 19 16 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) ITE Trip Generation for Coffee I Donut Shop 2,000 s.f. 1 II 106 without Drive-Through Window (936) Proposed East Jefferson Coffee Shop 2,000 s.f. 41 39 ITE Trip Generation for 2,000 s.f. 12 10 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) ITE Trip Generation for Coffee I Donut Shop I ,800 s.f. 100 96 without Drive-Through Window (936) MiJli Coffee Roasters- Preston Avenue 1,800 s.f. 31 22 ITE Trip Generation for I ,800 s.f. II 9 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) Based on the Shenandoah Joe and Milli Coffee Roasters data, the proposed coffee shop is expected to generate only 80 trips during the AM peak hour, which is approximately 63% lower than the 217 AM peak hour trips predicted by ITE. This analysis is based on the ITE trip rates, which result in significantly more trips than other local coffee shops. ____________ ..... ____________ _ ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 6 of12 Site Traffic Distribution The following site traffic distribution was assumed for vehicle trips based on a review of the existing traffic volumes, the adjacent roadway network, and engineering judgement: • 30% to I from the north on 1O'h Street • 30% to I from the south on I 01h Street • 15% to I from the west on East Jefferson Street • 15% to I from the north on I1 th Street • 5% to I from the south on 11th Street • 5% to I from the east on East Jefferson Street The following site traffic distribution was assumed for the pedestrian and bicycle trips: • 55% to I from the west on East Jefferson Street • 20% to I from the south on I 01h Street • I 0% to I from the north on I 01h Street • 10% to I from the north on II th Street • 5% to I from the south on I 1th Street The vehicle trips are assumed to be medium and long-range trips, so a significant percentage of those trips are assigned to I from the US 250 Bypass. The pedestrian and bicycle trips are assumed to be short-range trips, which will be oriented toward the downtown area. Figures 4 and 5 show the site trip distribution for vehicles and pedestrian I bicycles. Figure 6 shows the vehicle site trip assignment, and the build 2019 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. ------~------------------ ~AMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 7 of 12 Traffic Capacity Analysis Traffic capacity analysis for the study intersections was performed using Synchro 9.1, which is a comprehensive software package that allows the user to model signalized and unsignalized intersections to determine levels-of-service based on the thresholds specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 4 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of I oth Street NE at East Jefferson Street, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 4 Level-of-Service Summary for 10111 Street NEat East Jefferson Street AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR t;A E CONDITION GRO 0 r :l ll Q,•e.rnll I' Lane Q ueue L,O Lane Queue 0 LOS (ft) (Dchly) LOS (ft) (Dclav) EBLrr/R 1 B 10 c 35 Existing 2016 WBLIT/R 1 B 13 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBLIT/R2 A 0 N/A 3 A 0 N/A 3 SBL/T/R 2 A 3 A 3 EBL/T/R 1 B 10 c 48 No-Build 2019 WBL/T/ R 1 B 15 B 10 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 0 N/A 3 A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R 2 A 3 A 3 EBLIT/R 1 c 20 c 60 Build 2019 WBLIT/R 1 B 13 B 10 Traffic Conditions NBLIT/H? A 0 N/A 3 A 0 N/A 3 SBL/T/R 2 A 3 A 3 I Level o l scrv1cC tor mmor spproach 2. Level of service for msjor street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, del ay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of three vehicles or less. Note that the eastbound and westbound approaches are offset by 90 feet, and function as two three-leg intersections. Note that this intersection was modeled as one four-leg intersection, which results in longer delays and queues because a four-leg intersection has 32 traffic conflict points, but a three-leg intersection has only 9 traffic conflict points. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. _______ _. ____ _______ ____ __ ,__, .__ ......, ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 8 of12 Table 5 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 11th Street NE at East Jefferson Street, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 5 Level-of-Service Summary for 11th Street NE at East Jefferson Street AM PE I HOUR PM PEAf HO UR L 0 DITIO Ovoru ll 0 Cl'!lll GROUP Lan • Qu ~~ ~ LO Lan e Queue L O~ LO ' (fl) L ft} (Jlcla.)') (,l}!llay) 1 EBLff/R A 5 B 10 Existing 2016 WBL/T/R 1 B 5 B 5 Traffic Conditions NBLff/R2 A 3 N/A 3 A 0 N/A3 SBLff/R2 A 0 A 0 EBL/T/R 1 A 8 B 13 No-Build 2019 WBLff/R 1 B 5 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBL!f/R2 A 3 N/A 3 A 0 N/A3 SBL!f/R2 A 0 A 0 EBLff/R 1 B 8 B 13 Build 2019 WBL/T/R1 B 8 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 3 N/A 3 A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 3 A 0 1. Level of service for 1111110r nppronch 2. Level of service for major street left-tum movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. _______ ..... ________________ _ ~RA ~~~ -~-~~~ ~AS SOciATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 9 of12 Table 6 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of Little High Street at 11th Street NE, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 6 Level-of-Service Summary for Little High Street at 11th Street NE AM Plt I< tJOtJR PM PEAK HOUR -'ONOITfON 'L NF. GRO P Overall 0 CI'UII Lnne Queue Ln uc neu e LO. (II) LOS L (ft) LO (Delay) (,Delay) 2 EBLn'/R A 0 A 0 Existing 2016 WBLIT/R2 A 0 A 0 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R 1 B 5 N/A 3 B 10 N/A3 SBLIT/R 1 B 15 B 8 EBL/T/R 2 A 0 A 0 No-Build 2019 WBLIT/R2 A 0 A 0 Traffic Conditions NBLIT/R 1 B 5 N/A 3 B 10 N/A 3 SBLIT/R 1 B 18 B 10 Build 2019 EBL/T/R 1 B 15 B 10 Traffic Conditions WBL/T/R 1 B 13 B 8 with Stop control on NBL/T/R 2 A 0 N/A 3 A 0 N/A 3 Little High Street SBL/T/R 2 A 0 A 0 I. Level ofserv1ce for mmor oppruuch 2, Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3, HCM methodology does not provide lane group or ove rall LOS, delny, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right tums at unsignal ized intersections Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. As described later in this report, we recommend switching the Stop control at this intersection to designate 11th Street as the major street, and Little High Street as the minor street. We also recommend installing bulbouts on the west side of the intersection to aid in traffic calming, and the shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. _________ _______ _______ _ ._. ...., ~RAMEY KEMP 'V'ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 10 ofl2 Table 7 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 1oth Street NE at Site Driveway 1, and all ofthe Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 7 Level-of-Service Summary for 10 1h Street NE at Site Driveway 1 AM PEAl( HO R p 'I p KHOtJR LNE CONDITION Overall Ovcrn ll RO J> Lane Q •·uc L3nc Queue 1.0 LO IJO. (ft) (Delay) LO (n)' (Delay) WBL!R 1 B 25 B 8 Build 2019 Traffic Conditions NBT/R - - N/A3 - - N/A3 SBL/T 2 A 3 A 3 1. Level ofscrv1ce for mmor approach 2 Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3 HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignali zed intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours at build-out of the site, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. Table 8 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 11th Street NE at Site Driveway 2, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 8 Level-of-Service Summary for 11th Street NE at Site Driveway 2 I PEAKUOU,R PM P •AKTIO R 1. E CONDITION 0 erall 0 crn ll GJtOUP Lane Queue uo ~ Queue LO (l'l) LO LO (ft) LOS (Dcllly) (DchtY) EBLIR 1 A 3 A 3 Build 2019 Traffic Conditions NBL/T 2 A 0 N/A 3 A 0 N/A3 SBT/R - - - - I. Level ol serv1cc for mmor approach 2 Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3 1-JCM methodology docs not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalizcd intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours at build-out of the site, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. ____ ____________________ _ ....., ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 11 of12 Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis A multi-way stop warrant analysis was performed for the intersection of Little High Street at 11th Street NE. Multi-way stop warrants are evaluated using the thresholds for intersection volume and collision history as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The following traffic volume thresholds must be met for at least 8 hours to warrant multi-way stop control: • The approach volumes on the major street approaches must exceed 300 vehicles per hour, and • The approach volumes on the minor street approaches must exceed 200 vehicles per hour During the traffic count, the 8:00 to 9:00 AM hour was the busiest, and the total approach volume at the intersection was only 254 vehicles. This is just over half the threshold needed to meet one hour of the warrant, so the traffic volumes are well below the thresholds for multi-way stop control. In order to meet the collision warrant for a multi-way stop, there must be five or more correctable collisions in a 12 month period at the intersection. Based on the data provided by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), there were no reported collisions at the intersection between January 2013 and December 2015, so that warrant is not met either. We understand that there is concern about the speed of traffic on eastbound Little High Street. Based on the 14 hour volume data, 11th Street had a total approach volume of 966 vehicles, and Little High Street had a total approach volume of 882 vehicles. he proposed redev lopment is projected to add approximately 315 vehicles per day to this segment of 11 111 Street. There·fi re we rec mmend switching the Stop control at this intersection to designate 11th Street as the majo r str et and Little High Street as the minor street. We also recommend installing bulbouts on the west side of the intersection to aid in traffic calming, and the shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. Note that this analysis includes several assumptions that overestimate the impact of the proposed redevelopment: • The capacity analysis in this TIA assumes no reduction for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, even though a comparison of City Walk Apartments shows a 33% adjustment would be appropriate • The existing medical office trips were not subtracted from the study intersections • The trip generation of the coffee I donut shop results in a significantly higher number of trips because most of the shops surveyed by ITE are part of large chains, and located on major thoroughfares. The proposed shop will likely be locally-owned and focused on serving the neighborhood. • The proposed specialty retail space and coffee I donut shop will attract pass-by trips, but no adjustment for pass-by trips was made in this analysis • The intersection of I 01h Street NE at East Jefferson Street was modeled as four-leg intersection ..... ________ ________________ _ instead oftwo three-leg intersections ,....... ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 12 of12 Figure 8 shows the recommended lane configuration. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please contact me at (804) 217-8560 if you have any questions about this report. Sincerely yours, Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. Carl Hultgren, P.E., PTOE Regional Manager Enclosures: Figures, Synchro output, Traffic count data, Multi-Way Stop warrant Copy to: Mr. David Mitchell, Southern Classic, Inc. Ms. Valerie Long, Williams Mullen Ms. Ashley Davies, Williams Mullen Mr. Scott Collins, P.E., Collins Engineering _______________________ __ ....., ~RAMEY KEMP ~ASSOCIATES l I LEGEND ... 0 Study Intersection 1.. -· Site Bounda1y (!§) Overview Ui East Jefferson Street Site Location and Study .RAMEY KEMP Apartments Intersections ASSOCIATES T Jti\NSPOA T A T tON E NGtNfiEUS Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale I Figure 1 \ I Oth Street NE II th Street NE l11(11) .._ 36 (39) f 11 (3) Little High Street (10) 15 J (42) 15 ___.. (3) 581 l 8 (22) 1 (4) i L_ f 1---------, Medical D riveway #I Medical Medical Driveway#2 Driveway #3 l 47 (37) l 3 (8) .._ 19 (7) .._ 21 (27) f 10 (8) l2 (!) l 4 (3) f 8 (5) ._) L_ .._ 73 (50) ._) L_ .-n (44) E Jefferson ------~----------------~--------------~---------------4---------- Street (49) 19 J (l) 5 J (6) 9 J (13) 5 J (35) 12 ___.. (72) 47 ___.. (67) 38 ___.. (33) 11 ___.. Vl' 0 s '-' p::: t- }- Site Driveway - -t t- Existing Driveway Site Existing Driveway (To Be Removed) (To Be Removed) ++ E Jefferson + --t- ++ Street LEGEND 1Oth Street NE X' Storage (In Feet) 11th Street NE --- Existing Lane --- Proposed Lane Configuration I Proposed Curb Bulbout East Jefferson Street Recommended Lane +;~_;.;J.~;~~,; Configuration Apartments Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale I Figure 8 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 1: 1Oth Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ 4+ ~ 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 12 13 10 19 47 11 133 8 32 236 25 Future Vol, veh/h 19 12 13 10 19 47 11 133 8 32 236 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 13 15 11 21 53 12 149 9 36 265 28 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 567 534 279 544 544 154 293 0 0 158 0 0 Stage 1 351 351 179 179 Stage 2 216 183 365 365 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 434 452 760 450 446 892 1269 1422 Stage 1 666 632 823 751 Stage 2 786 748 654 623 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 381 434 760 418 428 892 1269 1422 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 381 434 418 428 Stage 1 659 613 815 743 Stage 2 711 741 609 604 AEEroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 11 .6 0.6 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1269 - 465 628 1422 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.106 0.136 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 13.7 11 .6 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 0.5 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 26 8 21 3 25 24 1 5 45 30 Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 26 8 21 3 25 24 1 5 45 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 15 36 11 29 4 34 33 1 7 62 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 214 199 82 223 218 34 103 0 0 34 0 0 Stage 1 96 96 102 102 Stage 2 118 103 121 116 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 743 697 978 733 680 1039 1489 1578 Stage 1 911 815 904 811 Stage 2 887 810 883 800 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 700 678 978 680 661 1039 1489 1578 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 700 678 680 661 Stage 1 890 811 883 792 Stage 2 832 791 831 796 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 10.6 3.7 0.5 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1489 - 841 689 1578 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.068 0.064 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.6 10.6 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hi~h Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Jnt Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 15 58 11 36 11 3 26 3 6 70 3 Future Vol, veh/h 15 15 58 11 36 11 3 26 3 6 70 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 22 22 84 16 52 16 4 38 4 9 101 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 68 0 0 106 0 0 252 207 64 220 241 60 Stage 1 107 107 92 92 Stage 2 145 100 128 149 Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1533 1485 701 690 1000 736 660 1005 Stage 1 898 807 915 819 Stage 2 858 812 876 774 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1533 1485 602 672 1000 688 643 1005 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 602 672 688 643 Stage 1 885 795 901 810 Stage 2 739 803 818 762 A~eroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 1.4 10.6 11.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 686 1533 - 1485 - 655 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.014 - 0.011 - 0.175 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 7.4 0 7.5 0 - 11.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 0 0.6 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 1: 1Oth Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 4.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 35 60 8 7 37 10 233 8 30 208 11 Future Vol, veh/h 49 35 60 8 7 37 10 233 8 30 208 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 38 66 9 8 41 11 256 9 33 229 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 608 588 235 635 589 260 241 0 0 265 0 0 Stage 1 301 301 282 282 Stage 2 307 287 353 307 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 408 421 804 391 421 779 1326 1299 Stage 1 708 665 725 678 Stage 2 703 674 664 661 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 370 405 804 323 405 779 1326 1299 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 370 405 323 405 Stage 1 701 646 718 671 Stage 2 652 667 557 642 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 11 .9 0.3 0.9 HCM LOS c B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1326 491 581 1299 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 0.322 0.098 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 15.8 11 .9 7.8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A c B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 1.4 0.3 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ 4t ~ 4t Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 33 32 5 27 8 15 45 4 9 32 5 Future Vol, veh/h 13 33 32 5 27 8 15 45 4 9 32 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 41 40 6 34 10 19 56 5 11 40 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 184 165 43 202 165 59 46 0 0 61 0 0 Stage 1 66 66 96 96 Stage 2 118 99 106 69 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 777 728 1027 756 728 1007 1562 1542 Stage 1 945 840 911 815 Stage 2 887 813 900 837 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 730 714 1027 684 714 1007 1562 1542 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 730 714 684 714 Stage 1 933 834 899 804 Stage 2 830 802 816 831 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 10.1 1.7 1.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1562 - 819 754 1542 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - 0.119 0.066 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 10 10.1 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 0.2 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hi~h Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4t- 4t- 4t Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 42 42 3 3 3 3 * 39 39 11 11 9 9 54 54 3 3 9 9 40 40 13 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 13 53 4 4 49 14 11 68 4 11 50 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 63 0 0 56 0 0 175 149 54 178 144 56 Stage 1 79 79 63 63 Stage 2 96 70 115 81 Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 1549 788 743 1013 784 747 1011 Stage 1 930 829 948 842 Stage 2 911 837 890 828 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 1549 729 734 1013 720 738 1011 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 729 734 720 738 Stage 1 922 822 939 839 Stage 2 840 834 807 821 A~eroach EB WB NB S8 HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.4 10.5 10.1 HCM LOS 8 8 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt N8Ln1 E8L EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 743 1540 - 1549 - 779 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 0.008 - 0.002 - 0.099 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 7.4 0 7.3 0 10.1- HCM Lane LOS 8 A A A A 8 HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 0 0.3 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 1: 1Oth Street N E & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ..;. ..;. ..;. ..;. Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 13 14 11 21 51 12 145 9 35 258 27 Future Vol, veh/h 21 13 14 11 21 51 12 145 9 35 258 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 24 15 16 12 24 57 13 163 10 39 290 30 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 619 584 305 594 594 168 320 0 0 173 0 0 Stage 1 384 384 195 195 Stage 2 235 200 399 399 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 401 423 735 417 418 876 1240 1404 Stage 1 639 611 807 739 Stage 2 768 736 627 602 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 345 404 735 383 399 876 1240 1404 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 345 404 383 399 Stage 1 631 590 797 730 Stage 2 686 727 578 582 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 12.2 0.6 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SST SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1240 - 428 595 1404 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.126 0.157 0.028 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 14.6 12.2 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 0.6 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h 5 5 * 16 16 36 36 9 9 23 23 3 3 27 27 27 27 1 1 5 5 49 49 33 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 7 22 49 12 32 4 37 37 1 7 67 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 232 215 90 251 238 38 112 0 0 38 0 0 Stage 1 103 103 112 112 Stage 2 129 112 139 126 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 723 683 968 702 663 1034 1478 1572 Stage 1 903 810 893 803 Stage 2 875 803 864 792 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 677 662 968 634 643 1034 1478 1572 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 677 662 634 643 Stage 1 880 806 870 782 Stage 2 815 782 794 788 AEEroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 10.9 3.7 0.4 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1478 829 662 1572 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.094 0.072 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.8 10.9 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A A A B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hi ~ h Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ ~ 4+ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 29 3 5 74 3 Future Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 29 3 5 74 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 23 23 90 17 55 17 4 42 4 7 107 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 72 0 0 113 0 0 268 221 68 237 258 64 Stage 1 114 114 99 99 Stage 2 154 107 138 159 Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1528 1476 685 678 995 717 646 1000 Stage 1 891 801 907 813 Stage 2 848 807 865 766 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1528 1476 580 659 995 665 628 1000 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 580 659 665 628 Stage 1 877 788 892 803 Stage 2 723 797 802 754 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 1.4 10.8 11.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 671 1528 - 1476 - 639 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 0.015 - 0.012 - 0.186 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 7.4 0 7.5 0 - 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 0 0.7 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 1: 1Oth Street N E & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4t 4+ 4t Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 43 66 9 8 40 11 255 9 33 227 12 Future Vol, veh/h 54 43 66 9 8 40 11 255 9 33 227 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 59 47 73 10 9 44 12 280 10 36 249 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 665 643 256 697 644 285 263 0 0 290 0 0 Stage 1 329 329 309 309 Stage 2 336 314 388 335 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 374 392 783 356 391 754 1301 1272 Stage 1 684 646 701 660 Stage 2 678 656 636 643 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 334 375 783 282 374 754 1301 1272 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 375 282 374 Stage 1 676 625 693 653 Stage 2 623 649 516 622 AQQroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.1 12.6 0.3 1 HCM LOS c B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SST SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1301 - 452 536 1272 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.396 0.117 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - 18.1 12.6 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS A A c B A A HCM 95th %tile O(veh) 0 1.9 0.4 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street N E & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +f. 4+ 4+ 4+ Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 9 16 47 4 10 34 5 Future Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 9 16 47 4 10 34 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 18 45 44 6 45 11 20 59 5 13 43 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 200 175 46 216 175 61 49 0 0 64 0 0 Stage 1 71 71 101 101 Stage 2 129 104 115 74 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 759 718 1023 740 718 1004 1558 1538 Stage 1 939 836 905 811 Stage 2 875 809 890 833 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 702 702 1023 663 702 1004 1558 1538 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 702 702 663 702 Stage 1 927 828 893 800 Stage 2 806 798 798 826 Aeeroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 10.3 1.8 1.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1558 806 738 1538 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.132 0.085 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 10.1 10.3 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile O(veh} 0 0.5 0.3 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hi9h Steet Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR S8L SBT S8R Lane Configurations ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h 11 11 * 45 45 3 3 3 3 41 41 12 12 10 10 * 57 57 3 3 10 10 43 43 14 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 14 56 4 4 51 15 13 71 4 13 54 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 66 0 0 60 0 0 188 160 58 189 154 59 Stage 1 86 86 66 66 Stage 2 102 74 123 88 Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1536 1544 772 732 1008 771 738 1007 Stage 1 922 824 945 840 Stage 2 904 833 881 822 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1536 1544 709 723 1008 704 729 1007 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 709 723 704 729 Stage 1 914 817 936 837 Stage 2 829 831 794 815 Aeeroach E8 WB N8 SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0.4 10.6 10.3 HCM LOS 8 8 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR S8Ln1 Capacity (veh/h) 730 1536 - 1544 - 769 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.12 0.009 - 0.002 - 0.109 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 7.4 0 7.3 0 10.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 0 0.4 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 1 : 1Oth Street N E & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 13 14 11 21 51 12 180 9 35 303 49 Future Vol, veh/h 39 13 14 11 21 51 12 180 9 35 303 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 44 15 16 12 24 57 13 202 10 39 340 55 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 722 686 368 696 708 207 396 0 0 212 0 0 Stage 1 447 447 234 234 Stage 2 275 239 462 474 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 342 370 677 356 360 833 1163 1358 Stage 1 591 573 769 711 Stage 2 731 708 580 558 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 290 352 677 324 342 833 1163 1358 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 352 324 342 Stage 1 583 552 759 702 Stage 2 649 699 531 537 Aeeroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.3 13.2 0.5 0.7 HCM LOS c B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1163 344 530 1358 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 0.216 0.176 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 18.3 13.2 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS A A c B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.8 0.6 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 9 27 33 1 19 57 33 Future Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 9 27 33 1 19 57 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 7 22 49 12 32 12 37 45 1 26 78 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 295 274 101 308 295 46 123 0 0 47 0 0 Stage 1 153 153 120 120 Stage 2 142 121 188 175 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 657 633 954 644 616 1023 1464 1560 Stage 1 849 771 884 796 Stage 2 861 796 814 754 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 602 605 954 574 589 1023 1464 1560 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 602 605 574 589 Stage 1 827 757 861 775 Stage 2 795 775 736 740 AEEroach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 11.1 3.3 1.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h} 1464 - 786 645 1560 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.099 0.087 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10.1 11 .1 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th 0/otile Q(veh} 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hili}h Steet Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 51 3 5 91 3 Future Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 51 3 5 91 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 23 90 17 55 17 4 74 4 7 132 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 270 236 134 290 236 76 136 0 0 78 0 0 Stage 1 149 149 85 85 Stage 2 121 87 205 151 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 683 665 915 662 665 985 1448 1520 Stage 1 854 774 923 824 Stage 2 883 823 797 772 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 624 660 915 577 660 985 1448 1520 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 624 660 577 660 Stage 1 851 770 920 822 Stage 2 807 821 694 768 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.4 11 0.4 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1448 - 799 685 1520 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.003 - 0.171 0.131 0.005 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10.4 11 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.6 0.5 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 4: 1Oth Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h v67 44 ~ 217 53 35 320 4' Future Vol, veh/h 67 44 217 53 35 320 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 73 48 236 58 38 348 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 689 265 0 0 293 0 Stage 1 265 Stage 2 424 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 412 774 1269 Stage 1 779 Stage 2 660 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 397 774 1269 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 Stage 1 779 Stage 2 636 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 0 0.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 492 1269 HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.245 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) - 14.7 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 4 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 5: 11th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h v22 15 12 4 35 t+ 94 17 Future Vol, veh/h 22 15 12 35 94 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 16 13 38 102 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 175 111 121 0 0 Stage 1 111 Stage 2 64 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 815 942 1467 Stage 1 914 Stage 2 959 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 808 942 1467 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 808 Stage 1 914 Stage 2 950 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 1.9 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1467 - 857 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.047 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 5 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 1: 1Oth Street N E & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 43 66 9 8 40 11 277 9 33 244 20 Future Vol, veh/h 65 43 66 9 8 40 11 277 9 33 244 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 71 47 73 10 9 44 12 304 10 36 268 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 712 690 279 746 697 309 290 0 0 314 0 0 Stage 1 352 352 334 334 Stage 2 360 338 412 363 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 347 368 760 330 365 731 1272 1246 Stage 1 665 632 680 643 Stage 2 658 641 617 625 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 309 351 760 259 348 731 1272 1246 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 309 351 259 348 Stage 1 658 610 673 636 Stage 2 603 634 497 603 A~~roach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.9 13.1 0.3 0.9 HCM LOS c B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1272 - 415 507 1246 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.461 0.124 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 20.9 13.1 8 0 HCM Lane LOS A A c B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 2.4 0.4 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments- Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 12 16 51 4 13 37 5 Future Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 12 16 51 4 13 37 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 45 44 6 45 15 20 64 5 16 46 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 218 191 49 232 191 66 53 0 0 69 0 0 Stage 1 82 82 106 106 Stage 2 136 109 126 85 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 704 1020 723 704 998 1553 1532 Stage 1 926 827 900 807 Stage 2 867 805 878 824 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 678 687 1020 646 687 998 1553 1532 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 678 687 646 687 Stage 1 914 818 888 797 Stage 2 795 795 785 815 A~~roach EB WB NB S8 HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 10.4 1.7 1.7 HCM LOS 8 8 Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL N8T NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - 792 734 1532 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - 0.134 0.09 0.011 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 10.2 10.4 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.5 0.3 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little Hi9h Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h 11 11 * 45 45 3 3 3 3 41 41 12 12 10 10 65 65 * 3 3 10 10 54 54 14 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None - None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 14 56 4 4 51 15 13 81 4 13 68 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 242 211 76 239 218 83 85 0 0 85 0 0 Stage 1 101 101 108 108 Stage 2 141 110 131 110 Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4. 12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 6.12 5.52 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.21 8 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 712 686 985 715 680 976 1512 1512 Stage 1 905 811 897 806 Stage 2 862 804 873 804 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 651 674 985 658 668 976 1512 1512 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 651 674 658 668 Stage 1 897 804 889 799 Stage 2 787 797 802 797 A~~ro ach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 10.6 0.9 0.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1512 - 680 716 1512 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 . 0.108 0.098 0.008 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 10.9 10.6 7.4 0 HCM Lane LOS A A B B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.4 0.3 0 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 4: 1Oth Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations v ~ 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 16 349 33 22 272 Future Vol, veh/h 25 16 349 33 22 272 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 27 17 379 36 24 296 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 740 397 0 0 415 0 Stage 1 397 Stage 2 343 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 384 652 1144 Stage 1 679 Stage 2 719 Platoon blocked,% Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 374 652 1144 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 374 Stage 1 679 Stage 2 701 Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 0 0.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - 449 1144 HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0.099 0.021 HCM Control Delay (s) - 13.9 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh} 0.3 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 4 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 5: 11th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection lnt Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations ¥ 4 f+ Traffic Vol , veh/h 8 6 7 70 49 11 Future Vol, veh/h 8 6 7 70 49 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None - None None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MvmtFiow 9 7 8 76 53 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 150 59 65 0 0 Stage 1 59 Stage 2 91 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 842 1007 1537 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 933 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 838 1007 1537 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 838 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 928 Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0.7 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1537 - 903 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 5 Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Jefferson at 1Oth - AM Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/14/2016 Equipment 10: 4792 Page No :1 Grougs Printed- Cars + Trucks ~art 10th Street E Je fferson Street 10 th Street E Jefferson Street Southbou nd Westbound +--...-::~N._,o,_, rthbound -.--+----r-= Eastbound Time Ri ht I Thru Left [ u-t~ I Aw Tota1 Ri9ht I Thru Left ] u.r"':-T App r01~ ~ght Thru I Left [ u.r"'M ~~:'-1.-Thru Left u.rwM 1 App Total I I Int. rotill 07:00AM 0 20 2 0 22 1 1 0 0 2 0 12 2 0 0 4 0 4 42 07:15AM 3 28 2 0 33 3 1 2 0 6 4 19 1 0 0 1 0 1 64 07:30AM 4 27 5 0 36 3 1 2 0 6 1 30 1 0 4 1 0 6 80 07:45AM 1j_ R__6 0 74 2 1 1 0 4 1 23 1 0 4 2 0 8 111 - Total 18 132 15 0 165 9 4 5 0 18 6 84 5 0 '-t---'=--'- 8-- 8 0 19 297 ""l' 12 ~14 39~ 51 6 0 62 8 2 2 0 3 0 38 0 3 2 0 5 117 08:15AM 7 52 9 0 68 21 6 2 0 29 0 0 43 5 4 8 0 17 157 08:30AM 8 58 9 0 75 9 6 4 0 19 1 31 6 0 38 4 1 3 0 8 140 08:45AM 5 75 8 0 88 2 5 2 0 9 2 29 2 Q 33 4 4 6 0 14 1_11_ Total 25 236 32 0 293 40 19 10 0 69 8 133 11 0 152 13 12 19 0 44 558 Grand Total [ Apprch% Total% 43 368 9.4 80.3 5 43 47 10.3 5.5 0 0 0 458 1 49 53.6 56.3 5.7 23 26.4 2.7 15 17.2 1.8 0 0 0 10.2 14 87 1 5.7 1.6 217 87.9 25.4 16 6.5 1.9 0 0 0 247 1 16 28.9 20 27 25.4 31.7 42.9 1.9 2.3 3.2 0 0 0 63 7.4 I 855 10 lh Sl reel Out J~ Total c:=mJ A.!1ru c:::::illl j __ I I I 411 ~ 1Z.L_ol Left U-Tums :~t' Tllru . ~ - Ne>tUl 9/14/20 '1El 07 •00 liM 9/1412010 08:45AM C!!rs + TtuCks ~ -~ r ~ ' I Left Thru Righi U- Turns :1§_ 2171 H~ o 399 247 646 Out" lr1 To tal on lh S treet Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Jefferson at 1Oth - PM Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000001 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/13/2016 Equipment ID: 4791 Page No :1 Groups E_rinted- Cars+ Trucks:-::----:::-:------:------,-- E Jefferson Street 1Oth Street E Jefferson Street Westbound !--~_._, Northbound Eastbound Right l .J:hru J Left j U·Twm Aoo Tolol Right I Thru ]-Left j u.r"'. J Ap"' Tolol ~ht Thru J Left ] u-TwN ) J '11>9 ra"' _ Int. Tola l J 7 4 3 0 14 0 40 3 0 43 16 8 5 0 29 125 3 3 3 0 9 1 43 1 0 45 6 2 8 0 16 123 10 6 7 0 23 2 44 0 0 46 13 8 12 0 33 146 9 2 __ 3 __ 0 14 3 47 5 0 55 10 6 9 0 25 145 29 15 16 0 60 6 174 9 0 189 45 24 34 0 103 539 'lf 05:00PM 2 47 6 0 55 14 3 3 0 20 2 63 3 0 68 21 10 15 0 05:15PM 2 60 7 0 69 5 1 2 0 8 0 66 0 0 66 11 6 12 0 29 172 05:30PM 1 60 8 0 69 9 1 0 0 10 2 57 2 0 61 18 7 13 0 38 178 05_~45 PM 1 47 4 0 52 6_ 3_ 2 0 11 5 56 0 0 61 7 5 4 0 16 140 Total 6 214 25 0 245 34 8 7 0 49 9 242 5 0 256 57 28 44 0 129 679 Grand Total I 25 365 42 0 432 1 63 23 23 0 109 1 15 416 14 0 445 1 102 52 78 0 232 ] 1218 Apprch % 5.8 84.5 9.7 0 57.8 21 .1 21.1 0 3.4 93.5 3.1 0 44 22.4 33.6 0 Total% 2.1 30 3.4 0 35.5 5.2 1.9 1.9 0 8.9 1.2 34.2 1.1 0 36.5 8.4 4.3 6.4 0 19 10 lh S iteel Out In . Total Cilll l--1~2'1 ~ L 1 I 25 [ ~ 4.2~1_ QI Rl ht Thru Left U-Turns L~ ~ ...I ..... -~ ~~ -5~ 'iii~ .. ,g: -, "_j ...J ffl=> £ I North t~~ ~0E.~ ·-:::T2 ,_t: <0 I ~: I d ~-~ ~ I!- I c I l o.c: - 9/13/2016 04:00 PM 9/13/2016 05:45 PM I - ;ill"-l ~j o =>o !D 1-~ :::1 ~ J ,_ ,Q>---1 C/l .., ~ ~ 0:: .... w;3."' ,.. "' Jo ~ t-;- :J Cars + Trucks ir ~~~l Left Thru Right U-Turns 14 4i61 __ 15. · . o] 490 445 935 Out In i ( ll h !1itPPI Total Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville( Jefferson and 11th) AM Pea~ Counted By: Site Code Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No : 1 11th Street 11th Street Northbound Jefferson Street Eastbound k I Start Time Right [ Thru , Right I Thru J Left App Total Right j Thru f_ Left_[_peds I Aoo Total lnt Total I 07:00AM 3 4 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 12 07:15AM 2 5 3 2 1 3 6 2 1 1 1 5 21 07:30AM 1 5 4 0 3 4 7 3 5 0 0 8 27 07:45AM 1 4 10 0 3 0 3 8 1 1 0 10 29 Total 7 18 18 4 7 7 18 14 7 3 1 25 89 '-l" 08:00AM 6 3 2 0 11 1 4 3 0 8 0 5 6 3 14 3 4 3 08:15AM 12 25 0 1 38 1 6 3 3 13 0 3 11 2 16 6 1 1 1 9 76 08:30AM 12 11 1 1 25 0 7 2 0 9 0 6 3 3 12 5 2 0 0 7 53 08:45AM 0 6 2 4 12 1 4 0 0 5 Q 10 5 1 16 10 4 1 0 15 48 Total 30 45 5 6 86 3 21 8 3 35 0 24 25 9 58 24 11 5 4 44 223 Grand Total 37 63 6 8 114 9 31 10 3 4 31 32 9 18 8 5 312 53 1 5.3 76 1 38 69 1 Apprch% 32 .5 55.3 5.3 7 17 58.5 18.9 5.7 40.8 42.1 11 .8 55.1 26.1 11.6 7.2 Total% 11.9 20.2 1.9 2.6 36.5 1 2.9 9.9 3.2 1 17 1.3 9.9 10.3 2.9 24.4 12.2 5.8 2.6 1.6 22.1 111h Street Out In Total c::A§J ~ ~ C I L~l ;~tt Tr Lr~ Peds ~~ OJ 1-- l ~__j ...J i t_~ ::::r - lw ~10 ~~!: North --i ~~-· ~ Q) g en ~-::::r (f.l r=' (0 2~ Ul ~ -1 - 1 9114/2016 07:00AM ~81~ .<: .2'-, 0:: "' a_"' 'C ... 9/14/2016 08:45 AM Cars + .. 1-" r = ~. -u '"''" "' "'g 1!--i ~ ' ·0 ~ ~!i Cl> Q) "- I "' •"' 11 11 76 [ Hri:J Out In Total 11111 S tfPPI I Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville( Jefferson and 11th) PM Pea~ Counted By: Site Code Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No : 1 Groups J:_ri ted- Cars + 11th Street Jefferson Street 11th Street Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound IStart Time 04:00PM Ri ht 2 I Thru J left [ Peds 2 1 0 1 App Tolal 5 Right 3 I Thru 7 I left ] Peds [ AoP ro1a1 Right 1Thru I l~ft Peds 0 0 10 1 3 2 1 • Tolal 7 3 6 1 I _Bight [ Ttlr!!.L Left Ped~'PP. 1 Tolal 11 lnt Total 33 I 04:15PM 2 7 2 1 12 3 5 0 0 8 2 2 1 1 6 1 3 4 3 0 10 36 04 :30PM 0 7 1 1 9 2 8 1 0 11 1 10 2 0 13 6 9 2 0 17 50 04:4 5 PM 1 7 2 1 11 3 8 1 0 12 0 8 2 1 11 8 7 4 1 20 54 Total 5 23 6 3 37 11 28 2 0 41 4 23 7 3 37 I 20 26 1o 2 58 1--:-1~ 73:- ':~ "h' 25 ~ 72 05:00PM 3 10 1 1 15 3 6 3 0 3 9 6 2 8 5 1 05 :15PM 1 8 5 0 14 0 4 0 0 0 12 5 1 18 7 9 2 0 18 54 05 :30PM 2 8 0 0 10 1 6 3 0 10 1 5 6 0 12 3 13 0 0 16 48 05:45PM 1 6 1 2 10 L 4 2 0 7 0 5 2_ _ _ 0 7 3 7 2 0 12 36 Total 7 32 7 3 49 5 20 8 0 33 4 31 19 3 57 24 37 9 1 71 210 Grand Total Apprch% I 12 14 55 64 13 15.1 6 7 86 I 21.6 16 48 64.9 10 13.5 0 0 8 74 1 8.5 54 57.4 26 27.7 6 6.4 94 1 44 34.1 63 48.8 19 14.7 3 2.3 129 1 383 Total% 3.1 14.4 3.4 1.6 22 .5 4.2 12.5 2.6 0 19.3 2.1 14.1 6.8 1.6 24.5 11 .5 16.4 5 0.8 33 .7 11th Street Out I Total ~I 1 l®] c::::illJ I 1 12 I ---r-:~ 55 t 13 L 6 Ri~hl Thru Left Peds ~J l l~ ~·- .... I North -9/t4t20i6 04:00 -PM-1 9/14/2016 05:45PM ! r - ro l Cars+ 1 ... "" 0~ ~J L fl Thru Righi Peds 26 54 1 · .--~ • 6 109 94 2.03 Oul In Total I"''"''""' Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : charlottesville(little high and 11th) 14 hour count Site Code Start Date : 5/10/2017 Page No : 1 Groups Print~_Q:_~ars + - Irucks - 11th Street Utile High Stre•t l~ lith Stre•t Little High Street I Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound [ Start Time Right Thru [ Left App. Total Right Thr~ Left App Total Right[ Thru L eft . Thru I I Left App. Total 1 Int. Total ] 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 06:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 a' 1 ~H 06:30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 06:45 0 1 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 Total 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 07:00 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 8 07:15 1 8 0 9 2 5 0 7 0 4 0 4 1 1 0 2 22 07:30 2 10 0 12 2 6 0 8 0 5 0 5 1 3 0 4 29 07:45 0 8 3 1'1 5 7 13 1 1 1 3 6 5 0 11 ~ Tota.l 3 30 3 36 9 19 29 2 11 14 8 10 0 18 97 08:00 08:15 08:30 08:45 Totaf 0 2 0 1 3 11 27 24 8 70 3 0 3 0 6 "h " 29 27 9 7 9 4 2 4 10 4 14 11 - -36 3 3 2 3 11 12 17 8 21 58 0 0 2 1 3 5 7 6 5 23 1 1 0 1 3 6 8 2! l 16 28 9 5 58 3 5 5 2 15 5 5 4 1 15 "L~ 38 18 8 88 92 61 45 254 09:00 09:15 09:30 09:45 Total 2 1 0 2 5 5 8 8 1.0 31 3 1 0 1 5 10 10 8 11 41 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 7 20 1 0 1 p 2 5 5 6 9 25 1 0 0 0 1 7 9 2 9 27 1 2 1 0 4 9 11 3 9 32 0 2 1 3 6 5 3 3 4 16 4 7 6 5 _'11 28 l '" __ 32 22 42 126 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 ·TOtal ~~~ 11:15 11:30 1 0 2 1 4 21 0 6 6 a 4 24 '6 5 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 ·!I 30 8 7 5 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 6 5 4 3 8 20 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 w 28 5 5 '10 ' I~, 4 2 1 0 1 2 2 1 7 9 7_ _ 27 4 10 1 2 1 1_ 5 1 3 1 5 10 10 9 34 1~ I 12 0 1 Q 2 0 2 1 ___j 3 2 2 11 4 1 2 5_ _ 2 3 1 0 6 0 2 1 6 5 4 4 19 4 5 4 26 27 29 29 111 26 25 23 -~?t! --!---2f 2 2 10 30 1 3 3 0 11- - 0 4 14 1 6 5 26 1 6 7 38 2 5 12 1 4 8 21 ~~ 103 Jl tO ~ 12:00 1 6 2 4 6 0 10 1 8 1 2 12 4 18 47 1~ I 12:15 3 4 1 1 6 0 7 0 17 3 20 3 5 2 45 12:30 1 11 1 2 8 0 10 0 12 0 12 1 5 1 42 12:45 3 5 0 81 0_ 3 2 5 1 lQ 1 12 2 6 3 11 ~6 - - -Total · 6 26 4 36 7 23 2 32 2 47 5 54 8 26 10 46 170 13:00 0 10 0 10 2 3 0 5 1 6 0 9 2 3 0 5 29 13:15 2 24 3 29 2 5 0 7 3 10 1 14 11 9 2 22 72 2~ I 13:30 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 13:45 2 11 0 13 2 1 0 1 .!L Q_ -~ ~ 5 I 9 40 Total 4 46 3 53 6 17 ·a 5 27 1 33 16 18 3 37 146 14:00 2 7 3 12 2 3 1 6 1 5 0 6 0 4 0 4 26 14:15 1 6 0 7 0 2 1 3 1 10 0 11 4 7 1 12 33 14:30 2 7 2 11 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 6 2 4 1 7 27 1•1:45 3 6 0 ~- 3 1 0 4- 0 8 1 9 0 3 l 4 26 -Total 8 26 5 39 5 7 2 14 2 27 5 34 6 16 3 27 114 15:00 0 9 3 12 2 5 1 1 6 2 9 2 9 1 12 41 15:15 15:30 15:45 3 1 0 7 6 6 3 1 2 13 10 10 1 1 2 5 11 6 3 0 3 J[ 13 0 0 1 5 10 9 0 3 1 5 13 11 1 8 1 4 6 3 1 7 2 6 23 6 33 56 40 Total 4 32 9 45 6 29 7 42 I 2 30 6 38 12 24 11 47 172 16:00 2 7 3 12 1 6 0 7 0 10 2 12 1 5 1 7 38 16:15 2 4 3 9 1 5 1 7 0 6 2 8 2 4 5 11 35 16:30 2 2 1 5 1 6 1 6 1 5 2 6 1 6 1 10 31 16:45 1 12 1 14 2 6 0 6 1 16 1 16 0 5 2 7 47 Total 7 25 8 40 . 5 23 2 30 2 37 7 46 4 22 9 35 151 11:oo I 4 10 2 16 0 6 71 12 2 15 0 7 11 49 Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : charlottesville(little high and 11th) 14 hour count Site Code Start Date : 5/1 0/2017 Page No : 2 _ __,G~rouQs Printed- Cars + - TrU<;)!:~ ~Right I 11th Street Little High Street 11th Street Little High Street l f Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound I Start 1ime 17:15 4 Thru I Left App. Total 7 2 13 Ri9!!!_, Thruj 6 20 Leftk 2 Total 28 - - - Left App Total 20 ght { Thru 2 a 2 t Leftj_App. Total tnt. Total 12 I 73 l 17:30 17:45 ' I 4 1 8 10 4 4 16 15 3 1 7 4 0 1 10 6 13 11 1 1 22 9 2 0 2U - 10 64 42 - - -TOtal 13 35 12 60 10 37 4 51 59 4 46 8 58 228 18:00 0 5 0 5 1 5 0 6 1 6 0 1 12 0 13 31 18:15 0 2 0 2 1 3 1 5 0 7 3 1 6 0 7 24 18:30 0 3 1 4 0 4 1 5 0 2 0 0 13 1 14 25 :: 5+ - --::o_ _ y_ - - -c'1!l;4"" 2 4- 'I 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 5 0 5 14 Total 0 12 3 15 3 13 2 18 2 16 4 2 36 - ----';- ,- 39 94 19:00 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 8 0 6 0 6 0 7 8 24 19:15 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 13 19:30 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 10 1 11 19 19:4_!!_ _ _._ 1 __2 0 3 2 ~ 0 8 0 2 2 4 0 2 1 3 18 Total 1 5 2 -- 8 6 19 ~ 2--~27~--0~-~ 12 2 14 0 22 - 3- - - 25 74 '"BREAK''' Grand Total Apprch% Total% f 64 12.4 3.5 387 75.1 20.9 64 12.4 3.5 515 27. 9 80 20.3 4 .3 277 70.3 15 37 9.4 2 394 21 .3 31 6.9 1.7 363 80.5 57 12.6 19.6__1,_1 451 l~r;31 24 4 26.8 7.1 277 56 8 15 80 16.4 4.3 488 2.6.4 1848 Cars+ 64 386 64 514 80 277 37 394 31 363 57 451 131 277 80 488 1847 _ 'lfo C~(S + 100 99.7 _100 99.8 0_ _ _ 1 100 0 1000 100._ _.....1.>:, 00" +---'1"'0-"- 0 __100_ 100 100 100 1 oo__1 oo __-'-'1o~oe-1 99.9 Trucks o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % Trucks 0 0,3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Ra,.,ey Ken'lp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Driveways - AM Counted By: Dean Site Code : 00000000 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/14/2016 Equipment 10: 4233 Page No :1 East Jefferson St EXIT Groups Printed- Unshifted 1Oth Street EXIT • East Jefferson St ENTER I 1Oth Street ENTE ~ d ! Southbound .-----t-=-:--:-c I rt Time Right Thru Left Peds A ••• BREAK ••• I I Westbound L Northbound Eastbound I Ri ~LThru Left I Peds .., Tn•~ Right I Thru- ICeft P-eds !.~_!~"' Ri ht Thru Left I Peds Ao T,,., 1 lnL To:;&] 07:15AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 07:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 07:45AM 0 Q_ _ o__ o 0 ·--:-- 1- 0 0 D 1 0 0 1 0 4_ _:0~-----:7 8 _11L - - Total 4w 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 10 13 ~ JU 1 1 ~ ~ !I ~ 08:00AM 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4 D 08:15AM 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 8 0 9 18 "-~---------'~"-~ ~ 08:30AM 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 8 08 :45AM 0'--------::0- D 0 0 2 0 __,_1_ _0. 3 _0_ 0 0 D 3 0 3 6 Total 3 0 0 0 3 9 0 2 0 11 2 0 6 0 17 0 19 41 I 12 1 ~ 9 1 24.~ ~ 0 Grand Total Apprch% 4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4183.310 0 0 16.7 2 0 0 22.22 0 7 0 77.8 22 0 75 .9 29 1 54 Total% 7.4 0 0 0 7.4 18.5 0 3.7 0 22.2 3.7 0 13 0 16.7 13 0 40.7 0 53.7 East Jefferson St EXIT Out Ill Total ~ [-_ 4 1 ~ I . 1 __4_1_ o1-----or- ol :1ht Tr Lr. Peds .... I North 9/14/2016 07:00AM 9/14/2016 08:45AM Unshifted . ~!'It_ , _lDD!. R)ght _pl1,ds.. ... 7 _ oj _ 2! _ o_ . :If 9 18i Out In Total F" 0 0:: 1- 10' .. ~<' <1>- _J I ...... I ;I) ci'i' ::r w - en o~o ~~-. w 1- z _j 'w·· North ~ - ::r .., :;. lt r ~ w '"' 20 ~.9 :E 9/1 3/2016 04:00 PM 9/13/2016 05:45 PM I r &1 ~--~ ..r~ 0? m :5:; '1 ~a r~~., a. 1 U!lS_hift.e.!L_ a. . "0 ~g~ Q!. "' o l r~ lefl Thr11 Righ t Peds 1 ol 1 a 15 21 '· _j_l Out In Total FR~ I .IAffAr U.S. 250 west past to Emmet Street (29 Business) or past U.S. 29 to one of several access roads into the campus. )> Monticello west to Main Street west and along Ivy Street into one of several connection streets into campus. )> High Street west to Preston Avenue to Grady Avenue and south of Rugby Road. Map C -1011 East Jefferson Street Study Site Location & Setting 16 Area Shopping. In spite of the urban setting, the study site is well located for shopping. Pantops is close by and has a large retail areas anchored by Giant Food and Food Lion. A new Wegmans opened on Fifth Sb·eet, just north of I-64. Barracks Road Shopping Center is located on U.S. 29, where 29 intersects with U.S. Route 250. This center has a wide range of new shops and restaurants. The Hydraulic Road/Route 29 /Hillsdale Drive area is also easily accessible to Kroger, Whole Foods, Marshalls, the Shops at Stonefield and a variety of additional shopping and dining alternatives. Small grocery stores are scattered throughout the City and in close proximity to the study site. Comparison shopping, including Fashion Square Mall, is located north of U.S. 250 on Route 29. The larger site arrows show the location of larger shopping locations. Oa_,.,_, . -·~ .. o C)ua•~~<~•~.. • 0-!;• ... "' • •ut Map D - Nearby Gmcery Stm s Market Area Economic Overview The Economic Overview Analysis is presented in this part of the report. The intent is to show the level of job growth in the market area, as a prelude to determining 17 housing unit demand. First presented are trends in market area at-place jobs. This is followed by employment and labor force data and then by a description of active developments, and the likely magnitude of new jobs that these projects will generate. These data and trends will be used to determine demographic growth and the resulting housing unit demand. At-Place Jobs At-place jobs refer to the number of jobs in the defined market area of both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. As of year-end 2015, the total number of at-place jobs in the market area was 91,260. The most recent at-place job totals are 10,000± more than in 2005, indicating an average annual growth of 910± jobs since 2005. Data in Table 1 show a decrease in total jobs in the key recession year of 2009, after sizable growth for the first eight years of the 2000 decade. The recession years of 2009 and 2010 were not growth years. That changed, with net growth between 2011 and 2015. For the period of 2010 to 2015, net job growth was 8,060± or approximately 1,610 per year on average. The current at-place job totals for year-end 2015 are at 91,260, which is over 4,880 above the pre-recession peak year of 2008. Thus, current at-place job totals are at an "all time" high for the market area and expanding. Over 3,300 new jobs were created in 2015. The market area has a very diversified job market with no dominant industry. The industrial categories of Retail Trade, Health Care and Accommodations and Food are the largest categories. State Government should likely be included in that group with the large number of employees at UV A, but these data are not published. Indush·ial job sectors with significant growth over the past decade include Admin./Waste Services (2,020± new jobs), Health Care (1,850± new jobs), Accommodations/Food (1,580± new jobs), Professional/Tech/ Services (960± new jobs), Arts/Enter.jRecreation (840± new jobs), Educational Services (700± new jobs) and Other Services (610± new jobs). 18 Since 2005, the industrial sectors with the most pronounced job losses have been Construction and Manufacturing. Notable manufacturing losses during this period include Badger Fire Protection (170± layoffs in 2007), Avionics Specialties (100± layoffs in 2007), GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms (50± layoffs in 2009), Biotage (70± layoffs in 2009), LexisNexis (60± layoffs in 2010), and Hyosung America (110± layoffs in 2010). Despite the loss of over 5,000 construction jobs, this sector added nearly 330 jobs in 2015. Table 1: T rends ru Avet·agc At-Ph1 cc g m[l,loymcnt, C hnrlottcsville-A ibemarle Co unt y, VA, 2005-20'15 Industry 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Net Change Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 524 519 476 479 447 ND ND ND ND -- Mining ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND - Utilities ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO - Construction 5,066 4,951 4,167 3,964 3,771 3,803 3,771 3,696 4,021 -5 ,062 Manu factu ring 3,679 3,745 3,406 3,058 2,948 ND NO NO NO -749 Wholesale Trade NO ND ND NO 1,354 1,392 1,297 1,325 1,282 -- Retail Trade 9,865 9,831 9,054 8,736 8,915 8,963 9,122 9,124 9,281 -584 Transpot1. & Warehousing NO ND ND NO ND ND NO NO NO - Information 2,109 2,193 2,051 2,035 2,021 2,108 2,094 2,035 2,018 -91 Finance/! nsurance 2,033 1,858 1,794 1,797 1,779 1,747 2,245 2,305 2,336 303 Real Estate 1,359 1,358 1,255 1,226 1,252 1,319 1,473 1,461 1,500 141 Professional/Tech. Services 4,994 6,069 5,931 5,668 5,581 5,493 5,635 5,644 5,955 961 Management of Companies 1,702 1,802 1,906 1,884 1,850 1,920 1,943 1,903 1,916 214 Admin ./Waste Services 2,447 3,035 2,842 2,830 2,889 3,505 3,541 4,099 4,471 2,024 Educational Services 1,022 1,217 1,248 1,298 1,388 1,523 1,583 1,604 1,720 698 Health Care 7,265 8,005 8,316 8,479 8,588 8,521 8,615 8,608 9,115 1,850 Arts/Enter./Recreation 1,306 1,515 1,541 1,812 1,883 1,909 1,914 2,006 2,142 836 Accommodations/Food 7,502 8,357 8,124 8,116 8,163 8,318 8,423 8,827 9,083 1,581 Other Services 3, 194 3,369 3,375 3,435 3,587 3,644 3,615 3,782 3,808 614 Local Government NO NO NO ND ND ND NO NO NO - State Government NO ND NO NO NO ND NO NO NO - Federal Government I ,323 1,309 1,354 1,365 1,250 1,249 1,236 1,220 1,247 -76 Total 81,245 86,381 83,872 83,199 84,237 85,611 86,179 87,939 91,263 10,018 Notes: ND = Data do not meet BLS or State agency disclosure standards. Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Overall, at-place job trends in the market area are positive. The at-place job totals did not decrease much during the recession, and in fact, remained higher than the pre- recession totals of 2005. The recession resulted in job losses in 2009 and 2010, but net growth has occurred since 2010 and the 2014 job totals area above the pre-recession year of 2008. 19 Employment and Labor Force Employment differs from at-place jobs, as it refers to the number of market area residents who are employed no matter where the job is located . Year-end 2016 employment data are available. Nearly 76,200 employees exist in the market area, approximately 15,000 below at-place jobs. The comparison of at-place jobs and employment indicates in-commuting into the market area for employment, likely from all of the adjacent counties - Greene, Nelson, and Augusta. Persons in these counties seek more affordable housing, but work within the market area. Employment in the market area grew in 2015 by 1,320± and by 750± jobs in 2016. Employment increased by 5,403± since 2007, which is less than the increases of at-place jobs. The number of persons in the Labor Force grew at a larger total than employment. That is one reason that the market area unemployment rate has not decreased more in spite of the net employment growth. The market area unemployment rate is a moderate 3.5 percent as of year-end 2016. This is down from the previous year's rate of 3.8 percent. Trend data show that the market area's unemployment rate is well below the national average and has remained relatively low even during the past recession of the late-2000's. Employment is a better indicator of housing unit demand, as it refers to where people live. The market area has had net employment growth and has a large labor force to support additional growth. 20 Tnb l 2: Trends in Em Jllov rn cnt nntl Unemnlo:yment1 C ha rlottesville Market Area l/1 2007-2015 Labor Force Emnlo:yment Unemnlo:yment Percent Unemnlo:yed 2007 72,572 70,773 1,799 2.5% 2008 74,380 71,967 2,413 3.2% 2009 73,650 69,586 4,064 5.5% 2010 74,190 69,727 4,463 6.0% 2011 75,408 71,199 4,209 5.6% 2012 76,070 72,117 3,953 5.2% 2013 75,914 72,273 3,641 4.8% 2014 77,899 74,427 3,472 4.5% 2015 78,468 75,453 3,015 3.8% 2016 78,922 76,199 2,723 3.5% Net Change 6,350 5.426 924 1.0% Notes: 1/ Market area includes Charlottesville City and Albemarle County. Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Market Area Development Activity UVA is by far the largest area employer. Second, is likely to be the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) and the associated Defense Intelligence Agencies (DIA) located at Rivanna Station near the Airport in northern Albemarle County. The trend that these large employers project is presented below, followed by a list and description of active new developments. University of Virginia (UVA). UVA is a key economic "driver" in the market area. Thus, the growth trends at UV A are included in our Economic Overview. Table 3 shows the enrollment trends at UV A for the ten-year period between 2007 and 2016. These data represent total on-campus fall headcount enrollment totals. The enrollment data show a net growth of 1,600± students over this period, or an 8.2 percent increase. This represents an average enrollment growth rate of 160± students per year. Net growth has been recorded in both the undergraduate and graduate populations. Undergraduate enrollment grew by 14.5 percent and graduate enrollment grew by 1.2 percent during this period. Enrollment of First Professionals and Continuing Education students fell over the past decade. 21 Table 3: UVA On-Cam~us Fall Headcount Enrollment TJ·endsl 2007-2016 Cont. & Undergraduate Graduate First-Prof. Total Prof. Studies Fall2007 13,636 4,830 1,724 644 20,834 Fall2008 13,762 4,904 1,725 666 21,057 Fall2009 13,928 4,835 1,695 437 20,895 Fall2010 14,015 4,831 1,694 509 21,049 Fall 2011 14,256 4,759 1,702 389 21,106 Fall2012 14,256 4,689 1,699 341 21,095 Fall 2013 14,610 4,558 1,746 324 21,238 Fall 2014 15,122 4,653 1,687 338 21,800 Fall 2015 15,421 4,647 1,630 310 22,008 Fall2016 15,611 4,887 1,579 314 22,391 Net Change 1,975 57 -145 -330 1,557 Percent Chan~re 14.5% 1.2% -8.4% -51.2% 7.5% Source: UV A Office oflnstitutional Assessment and Studies Data in Table 4 show the projection for total enrollment to a 2022 forecast date and a breakout of student enrollment projections by category. Projection data show minimal growth, with enrollment expanding by only 300± students by 2022. Undergraduate enrollment is projected to increase by 80± students in the Fall, 2018 semester and not increase until at least 2022. Graduate enrollment is projected to increase by 160± students by 2022. Table 4: UV A On-Caml!us Fall Head count Enrollment Projections, 2016-2022 Cont. & Undergraduate Graduate fi"irst-Pr-of. Total Prof. Studies Fall 2016 (Realized) 15,611 4,887 1,579 314 22,391 Fall2017 15,688 4,910 I ,585 353 22,536 Fall 2018 15,688 4,958 1,585 358 22,589 Fall2019 15,688 5,010 1,585 363 22,646 Fall 2020 15,688 5,018 1,585 368 22,659 Fall 2021 15,688 5,030 1,585 373 22,676 Fall2022 15,688 5,043 1,585 378 22,694 Net Change 77 156 6 64 303 Percent Change 0.5% 3.2% 0.4% 20.4% 1.4% Source: UV A Ot1ice of Institutional Assessment and Studies 22 Often, student enrollment growth projections are conservative, so these numbers, shown in Table 4, may change. However, more modest student growth is likely after 2017. Employment at UV A. Employment at the University of Virginia currently stands at 19,020± persons, which is up 2,330± over the 2007 total. UVA is the region's largest employer. About 72 percent of employees are full-time staff, compared to 15 percent who are full-time faculty. Approximately 15 percent of total employees are part- time workers. The following table shows the significant growth of employment at the University since 2007. Table 5: Trends in Em~lol:ment at UV A, bl: Fall Semester, UV A, 2007-2016 Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time Part-Time Total Staff Staff Faculty Faculty Fall 2007 12,170 1,383 2,901 241 16,695 Fall2008 12,401 1,521 2,985 237 17,144 Fall 2009 12,206 I ,512 2,966 193 16,877 Fall 2010 12,189 1,550 2,810 193 16,742 Fall 2011 12,181 1,777 2,741 175 16,874 Fall 2012 12,159 1,773 2,704 183 16,819 Fall 2013 12,175 1,755 2,687 186 16,803 Fall 2014 12,466 2,428 2,784 186 17,864 Fall 2015 12,845 2,667 2,775 197 18,484 Fall 2016 13,362 2,644 2,830 184 19,020 Change 1,192 1,261 -71 -57 2,325 Source: University of Virginia Office oflnstitutional Assessment and Studies Non-Residential Development. Several non-residential construction projects were recently completed, are planned, and are ongoing at UV A These are detailed in the paragraphs below. They will add net job growth at the University • UVA Medical Center. Ground was broken in June, 2016 on the renovation and expansion of the Emergency Department on the site of the former ground helipad. A larger expanded procedural and recover space will be built one floor above the existing Emergency Department. In addition, a six story tower will be built above the procedural space. Three floors will be used for private inpatient rooms, enabling UV A to convert most of its semi-private rooms into private rooms. The remaining three floors will be unfinished space reserved for future health care needs. This project also includes a rooftop helipad. The Emergency 23 Department and procedural space are expected to be completed in the summer of 2019. The bed tower is projected to be completed by the end of 2019. • Education Resource Center (ERC). Construction was recently completed on this four story, 45,200± square foot facility that acts as an education resource center with a new pharmacy, an outpatient imaging center and conference rooms. • Tennis Facility. A new 12-court outdoor temus facility is planned to be constructed at the Boar's Head Inn. The new facility will also include locker rooms, meeting rooms and lounges housed in a pavilion. There will also be a viewing platform from where visitors will be able to watch matches, along with seating for up to 3,500 spectators. The Outpatient Procedure Center. Construction was completed in April, 2017 on this renovation project that allows the Digestive Health Department to expand the Endoscopy Procedure Space by providing five new procedure rooms and twenty new prep/recovery rooms as well as scope disinfection and support space. The project is located at 500 Monroe Lane. The renovation encompasses approximately 21,000 square feet on the first floor of the building. • Gilmer Hall and Chemistry Building Renovation. This is the ongoing renovation of the 232,000± square foot Gilmer Hall and 273,000± square foot Chemistry Building. The project scope includes infrastructure upgrades, space renewals to meet the needs of STEM program growth, and necessary improvements to position the buildings as important teacrung and research resources for the University. Skipwith Hall. This new 14,350± square foot building was completed in January, 2016. It contains primarily open office areas, as well as several enclosed offices for a variety of Facilities Management staff. The building also accommodates four conference rooms and two small kitchenettes. • Ivy Orthopedic & Medical Center. This very recently announced project, to be constructed along Ivy Road, is planned for 200,000± square feet of medical office space to accommodate the University Hospital's orthopedic office and procedure practices. The time horizon for this new facility is two-three years out. The National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) This large employment facility is part of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command. It is located in Albemarle County on Route 29, near the Airport and north of Charlottesville. The exact number of employees at NGIC and DIA is classified, but the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce estimates that approximately 24 600± people are employed by NGIC. The average salary is approximately $80,000. Additional agencies associated with NGIC nearby include the US Department of Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Use Intelligence Analysis Facility, several private defense contracting firms, the US Army Judge Advocate General School (JAG School), and the US Federal Executive Institute. Combined, these account for approximately 3,000± jobs. Growth at these federal facilities is stagnant at this time. Charlottesville/Albemarle Development Activity Following is a list and description of the recent new area developments that have, or will, add new jobs to the market area. These projects are scattered throughout the market area. • Country Inn & Suites. Construction was completed in August, 2016 on this 86-room hotel on Seminole Trail in Charlottesville. • Marriott Residence Inn. Construction was completed in early-2016 on this 120,000± square foot hotel at 301 W Main Street. The seven-story hotel has 124 rooms. • Fifth Street Station. Construction was completed in early-2017 on this shopping center in Albemarle County near I-64. In addition to a 140,000± square foot Wegmans grocery store, the shopping center contains an additional 335,000± square feet of retail space. Over 1,000 persons could be employed at this location. • West2nd. This is a proposed mixed use development on the site of the existing City Market in downtown Charlottesville. Plans call for 68 condos, ranging from $400,000 to over $1 million, event space, 55,000 square foot of office space and a parking garage. A start date for construction is not yet set. • Marriott Autograph Collection. This is a planned ten-story, 150-room hotel to be built at 1106 W Main Street. The hotel is expected to employ 70 people when built. On-site amenities will include a restaurant, fitness center, business center and 3,000 square feet of meeting space. The hotel is expected to open in late-2017. • Apex Clean Energy, an alternative energy development company, announced in June, 2016 that it would expand its Charlottesville headquarters by adding 184 new employees. 25 • Mikro Systems, a manufacturer of hand and edge tools, announced in October, 2016 that it would expand its Albemarle County operations by adding 38 new employees. • Texas Roadhouse opened a new restaurant at 455 Albemarle Square in February, 2017 where 180 people are employed. • Lidl, a German grocery store chain, filed a site plan for a second location in Albemarle County in March, 2017. The 36,000± square foot store will be located at 405 Premier Circle on the west side of U.S. 29. Currently, a motel is on the site. The grocery store should open in 2018. • ACAC Fitness & Wellness Centers is currently building a health club at Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital's outpatient clinic, across the road from the hospital. The club will offer members cardia workouts, weight machines, free weights, stretching, group exercise classes and physical therapy sessions. It will also partner with the hospital for wellness programs. The facility is expected to open in the fall of 2017. • Comcast Xfinity Store. This 5,000± square foot store opened in February, 2017 at the Shops at Stonefield in Albemarle County. The store has a seating area and informational, interactive displays where customers can learn more about Comcast's products and services. • 323 Second Street SE. This is a proposed 120,000 square foot building with five stories of office space over a four-story parking structure. Construction could begin as soon as late-2017. Fairfield Inn & Suites. Ground was broken in late-2016 on this 117-room hotel to be part of the mixed-use William Taylor Plaza. The Blake at Charlottesville. Quality Senior Living announced in December, 2016 that it would construct a 56,000± square foot senior living facility on West Rio Road. The facility will offer independent living, assisted living and memory care services. The 115-bed facility is expected to employ 70 people and open in 2018. • The Dewberry. The Charlottesville City Council recently approved a Tax Increment Financing incentive that is intended to facilitate the restart of construction on what is planned to become a 100± room upscale hotel and restaurant on the Downtown Mall. Located on the former site of Citizens Bank and Trust Company, it is expected to create as many as 60 new jobs. • Barracks Row. The Charlottesville Planning Commission granted design approval for a new building at a corner of Barracks Road and Emmet Street. Under the site plan, three existing buildings will be demolished to make way for a CVS. 26 • Home2Suites by Hilton. Site plans were recently approved for this four story, 113-room hotel to be located at 201 Monticello Avenue. This will be an amenitized hotel with a fitness center and indoor swimming pool. • Ferguson Bath, Kitchen & Lighting. Construction began in March, 2017 on this 25,000± square foot showroom and sales center for Ferguson Bath, Kitchen & Lighting, which is relocating to the Seminole Square shopping center. Consh·uction of the showroom is expected to be completed by late-summer, 2017. The center will replace Ferguson's current location in the former Riverside Center at 2335 Seminole Trail Lane. • Riverside Medical Center. The former Riverside Center shopping center, located on Route 29 north of Hilton Heights Road, is being converted into 110,000± square feet of medical office space. Completion is scheduled for the summer of 2017. • Quirk Hotel announced in November, 2016 that it would build a 75-room hotel and gallery at 425, 501 and 503 W. Main St. in Charlottesville. The property includes two older buildings that would be incorporated with a new ground-up development on an existing parking lot. Excluding construction workers, these announced projects will add 2,000± jobs to the market area. Downtown Charlottesville. To emphasize, the study site is located only a few blocks east of Charlottesville's Downtown Pedestrian Mall, which is an eight-block commercial and historic district with a mix of arts and entrainment, shopping, dining and cultural events. It contains more than 120 shops and 30 restaurants. It has become a focal point of new activity in the City. Several stores have expanded or moved locations on the Downtown Pedestrian Mall over the past year, and some new spaces are scheduled to be occupied. Recent openings include Moonlight Collections (Note 11), Piedmont Council for the Arts (Note 12), West 2nd Sales Gallery (Note 13), Brassiere Saison (Note 14), Let it be Yoga (Note 15), Draft Taproom (Note 16), City of Charlottesville City Manager's Office (Note 17), Common House (Note 18), The Salad Maker (Note 19) and The Front Porch (Note 20). 27 There is a vibrant cohort of expanding and major businesses located downtown that are large employers, including, among others, CFA (460±), WorldStrides (400), ACAC (300±), Lexis Nexis (180±), WillowTree Apps (40+ ), S&P (former SNL Securities (400±), Merkle (160±), and numerous financial, legal and service firms with significant employees. In addition to the above are several residential, hotel and commercial developments. Many of these will be job-generating developments that show that the downtown area remains among the most active and attractive locations in the region for economic growth. Some of these were described above. Map E shows their locations . f .. •'! ~~ .. ! .3' .,.,., Ottllli Ch*'611 ~. c !;I .. . e t! t. t! c....'l., rtr (1fl4,,_ ., c:u..~'t.:,:;!o ~~ I!< -~""'J.. ,;' ..... . ., . ~ J o~r""""" r._ Q . ""''"21 ~ C"tuiDtt"""llitJo\o!fiii:M,., '/oltQI'1C.!(t • ~rc 0 OounO '4 ... Map E - Location of Downtown Area Active Developments 28 Section II Apartment Market Analysis Section I presented a detailed analysis of the study site and its competitive setting for new apartment unit development. The analysis was positive, as East Jefferson Place is located in close proximity to existing and planned multi-story apartment buildings and condominium buildings and is within walking distance to the downtown area. Also presented above is the vitality of the greater Charlottesville marketplace and the net growth in jobs, shown to be 2,000+ for the current period after a growth of 3,300 during 2015. The market area is realizing considerable net new job growth, with sizable percent of new jobs in professional fields. With this background in mind, the section to follow analyzes the two key factors in the evaluation of apartment unit demand. First is a demographic analysis of the market area that "solves" for the number and growth of renter households with incomes of $50,000 and above. The forecast date for the study is 2021, as this is the expected time frame for development of the apartment units proposed for East Jefferson Place. Renters with incomes of $50,000 and above, when incomes are reported in constant 2017 dollars, can afford net rents of $1,250 and above. Net rents refer to rents without any utility costs included. Section II also includes a detailed analysis of the more directly competitive apartment properties, with emphasis on apartment unit demand and project features. This analysis is expanded in Section Ill to include pipeline proposals, which in comparison with growth in renters with incomes of $50,000 and above, will document the demand for new apartment units and the feasibility of the 1011 East Jefferson Place proposal. 29 Demographic Analysis Market Area Population Trends & Projections The estimated 2016 population for the two jurisdictional market area, as shown in Table 7 is approximately 153,790, based on estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The market area population is estimated to have increased by approximately 11,340 since 2010, or 1,890± per year on average. Both the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County realized net population growth since 2010. The increase in the City's population between 2010 and 2016, after a population loss during the 2000's, is due partly to employment growth. Employment growth generated some of the recent market area's net population growth, but also a sizable level of growth is due to past expansion of the UVA student enrollment. This is shown in the Group Quarters population. Based on past trends, the market area population is projected to reach 164,350± by 2021. Table 7: Trends and Pro jections of Po[! ulation ;lnd Household by Ten ure ant.l IncOm!Q Charlottesville-Albemarle County, 1990-2021 (Constant 2017 Dollars) 1990 2000 2010 2016 2021 Market Area Population 108,380 124,290 142,450 153,790 11 161,350 Charlottesville City 40,340 45,050 43,480 46,910 49,200 Albemarle County 68,040 79,240 98,970 106,880 112,150 Group Quarters Population 3/ 8,490 8,370 9,300 9,950 21 10,300 4/ Household Population 99,890 115,920 133,150 143,840 151,050 Persons Per Household 2.47 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.37 Total Households 40,440 48,730 55,940 60,440 63,730 Percent Rental 44.5% 42.8% 42.1% 42.6% 42.9% Rental Households 17,990 20,850 23,560 25,750 27,340 Target Market 4/ Percent Within Inco me Category 38.9% 36.9% 35.2% 39.0% 45.0% Households Within Income Category 6,990 7,690 8,290 10,040 11,760 Notes: 1/ Based on 2016 data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. 2/ Based on on-campus occupancy increase of 600± students at UV A. 3/ Based on planned UVA residence hall capacity increase and new assisted living facility. 4/ Renter households earning annual incomes exceeding $50,000 . Source: 1990, 2000 and 20 I 0 Census, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce; S. Patz & Associates, Inc. 30 Group Quarters Population. The Group Quarters Population consists primarily of UV A students living in on-campus dorms, plus seniors in nursing homes or assisted living facilities and persons in hospitals, shelters, jails, etc. UVA students who live in privately owned homes, condos or apartment units located off campus are part of the household population, and thus not calculated as part of the Group Quarters Population. The Group Quarters Population of 9,950± in 2016 was deducted from total population to determine Household Population, as shown. Household Population is the basis for determining housing unit demand. The Group Quarters Population is expected to expand with an increase in on-campus housing and continued additions of assisted living beds. Households. The market area has a total of 60,440± households (occupied housing units), as of 2016. That total is 4,500± more than the 2010 total. By 2021, forecast data show the potential for a net growth of 3,290± households based on population growth and the estimate of the average household size. Thus, there will be an estimated 63,730 households in the market area in 2021. The current average household size in the market area is estimated at 2.38, which has been virtually unchanged since 2000. It decreased slightly over the past 20 years from 2.47 in 1990. The average household size has been low since 1990 compared with other communities of the size of the market area and this is somewhat surprising as students living off campus typically have three to four persons per household. In addition, the greater Charlottesville area is an attractive retirement community and has a sizable number of senior/ older adult households. Graduate students at UV A would typically be one- to two-person households. Whatever the case, the market area's average household size is low. By 2021, the average household size is projected to decrease slightly to 2.37. 31 Renter Households. The market area has 42.6 percent renter households, a percentage that has not decreased for more than 25 years. That percentage is well above the 35± percent rate for the state and country. The percentage of renters is high due to the large number of students living off campus. The fact that the percentage of renters decreased during the 1990's is due to a period of high home purchases, including several area condo conversions. The percentage of renters declined slightly during the 2000's due to the same reasons during the first half of the decade. However, during both periods, net renter household growth was realized. The current increase in apartment unit development was caused by an increased demand for rental housing from an expanding employment base. There was an increase of 2,200 renters in the market area during the 2010 to 2016 period, or nearly 450 per year on average. Continued renter household growth is projected for the 2016 to 2021 forecast period, as shown. Renter Households by Income The estimate for 2016 is that 36+ percent of market area renters have incomes of $50,000 and above. This percentage has remained relatively steady up to 2010 and prior to the sizable increase in new apartment units. A higher growth projection is also shown for the forecast period to 2021. Clearly, apartment unit development trends show a considerable increase in renter household growth, particularly the higher income renters. For the 2021 forecast period, a slight increase in the percentage of renters is expected. In 2016, the market area had 25,750± renter households. By 2021, this total is projected to increase to 27,340±, or 42.9 percent of total households. 32 Charlottesville's Target Income Renters. Locations within both the City and County compete for the market area's "competitive" apartment market, i.e. the market for renters with incomes of $50,000 and above. Typically, the selection of an apartment unit is based on availability, or what is on the market. Demographic data show that approximately 34 percent of market area renters with incomes of $50,000 and above, live in the City of Charlottesville, or a total of 3,700 in 2016. That total will likely increase by 1,720 renter households by 2021, based on past trends and the number of new apartment units to be added to the market to a total of 11,760 households. These data show that the City is a very competitive location for new apartment unit development for quality rental housing, in general. TableS: Renter Household Trends bl: Income and Locationl Charlottesville-Albemarle Countl:l J 990-2021 (Constant 2017 Dollars) 1990 2000 2010 2016 2021 Rental Households 17,990 20,850 23,560 25,750 27,340 Target Market ($50,000+) Percent Within Income Category 38.9% 36.9% 35.2% 39.0% 43.0% Hou seholds Within Income Category 6,990 7,690 8,290 10,040 11,760 Charlottesville City Percent Within Income Category 17.0% 13.6% 12.5% 13.8% 15.2% Households Within Income Category 3,060 2,840 2,940 3,540 4,160 Albemarle Countl: Percent Within Income Category 21.9% 23.3% 22.7% 23 .2% 27.8% Households Within Income Category 3,930 4,860 5.350 6,500 7,600 Source: 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce; S. Patz & Associates, Inc. Competitive Apartment Market Characteristics of the Market We identified fourteen apartment properties to study for the evaluation of market support for the proposed East Jefferson Place Apartments. These are listed in Table 9, number-keyed to Map F and shown in the attached photos. The "comps" 33 include seven new, post-2012 built apartment properties, two of which are in initial lease-up. One of the newest communities, Beacon on 5th, began leasing in early-2017. Woodlands II also started their preleasing and unit occupancy in 2017. The separation of Woodlands I and II calculates to 15 apartment properties under study. The newer apartment properties are those built in 2012 and after. 2012 appears to be the time frame, after the past recession that an abundance of new apartment communities were built in the market area. For the past 6+ years, 1,500+ new units were placed on the market or placed under construction. City Walk, Locust Grove and Beacon on 5th are located in Charlottesville. To date, approximately 1,150 of these newer units have been leased, an average annual pace of nearly 300 units, indicating that current inventory of available and unfinished apartment units equals about a one-year supply. The five newer apartment complexes that are at stabilized occupancy and were built prior to 2016, are at or near full occupancy. The only vacancy is at the two new apartment communities that recently opened. The other seven apartment properties listed in Table 9 were built between 1995 and 2006. No new communities that are comparable with the defined "comps" opened between 2007 and 2011, the period most affected by the recession of the late-2000's. These apartment communities are also full or at near full occupancy. Of these, Norcross Station and York Place are within the City of Charlottesville. The two new apartment properties that are still partly under construction add 400± units to the market. Both of these new properties currently have a considerable number of unfinished ("vacant") units that will become available for lease once they are completed . 34 Table 9: Characteristics of Comuetitive Non-Student Aua rtment Communities 1 Charlottesville Ma rket Area 1 Mav. 2017 MauF Year Total Vacant/U nfinished Key Built Units Units Newer Prouerties {2012+} Arden Place 1 2012 212 -- Beacon on 5th 2 0312017 241 -- I I City Walk 3 2014 301 -- Locust Grove 4 2015 43 -- Reserve at Belvedere 5 2012 294 -- Stonefield Commons 6 2012 251 -- Woodlands of Charlottesville 13 2003/17 300 41 -- 11 (Subtotal) (1,642) (350) Prouerties Ouened Before 2012 Avemore 7 2006 280 - Carriage Hill 8 1999102 140 21 -- Jefferson Ridge 9 2005 234 - Lakeside 10 1995198 348 -- Norcross Station 11 2004109 88 -- Stone Creek Village 12 2003 264 - York Place 61 14 NA 50 - Scattered Smaller Quality Units 31 NA NA 260 - (Subtotal) 0.664) f1l Total 3,306 354 Notes: 1I Still in lease-up. 21 Units available for rent at condominium. 31 Apartment units in quality smaller properties and in converted condominiums. 41 141 units in Phase I. 159 units in Phase II. 51 Excludes prope11ies in lease-up. Phase 1 of Woodlands of Charlottesville is fully leased. 61 Six buildings in Downtown Charlottesville. Source: Field and Telephone Survey by S. Patz and Associates, Inc. In addition to these fourteen apartment properties, there are several older and smaller properties - Lofts at Mcintire, Old Trail Apartments, Abington Place, Westgate, Barclay Place - with 250± apartment units that are somewhat competitive. Lofts at Mcintire is a mid-rise building located just outside of the downtown. Old Trail Apartment is located in Crozet with apartment units above retail. Abington Place is a small two-story apartment building located in the Hollymeade Town Center in Albemarle County. Westgate and Barclay Place are mature apartment properties that have been extensively renovated. These are not fully amenitized properties, some are smaller, and in some cases mature, but they generate high rents. However, they do not compete directly with those properties listed in Table 9. These apartment properties are 35 reported to be at or near full occupancy, but at rents slightly below the apartment properties under study. Also, during the mid-2000's, there were a number of apartment buildings that were converted to condominium ownership. The better of these include: )> 162 units at Carriage Hill )> 150± units at River Bend Apartments )> 150 units at Walker Square Apartments )> 44 units at Woodlands at Charlottesville Of these 510± units, a few units still remain in rental occupancy. These would be at competitive rents, but the total number of rentals is modest and data are hard to collect. There are also some more mature apartment properties that were converted, but these were not at the same rental rates. Thus, in total, the market area has approximately 3,300 apartment units that are at or near the competitive rents for the market area and that are expected at East Jefferson Place. They are studied as "camps", although other apartment properties in the market area also have rents of $1,000+. The current vacancy rate for the 3,300 better rental units is approximately 11 percent. However, almost all of the vacancies are at units being built at Beacon on 5th and Woodlands II. Some of these units are not yet complete. The vacancy rate for newer apartment properties with stabilized occupancy is a very low 0.7 percent. The apartment market had three new 2012-built properties with 757 units, plus the 301-unit City Walk, which opened in early-2014 and was fully completed in mid- December, 2014. The 43-unit Locust Grove was constructed in 2015. This is an adaptive- reuse of a historic medical office building constructed in the early-1900's. Leasing began in March, 2017 for Beacon on 5th, which will have 241 units at build out. Leasing recently began on the second phase of 159 units at Woodlands of Charlottesville. 36 There were eight apartment properties with 830 units that opened during the last half of the 2000 decade, including several of the smaller properties. These are at a near 100 percent occupancy rate, meaning that the addition of the newer apartment complexes since 2012 did not affect occupancy at existing properties. The Charlottesville area apartment market has significantly evolved since 2000. The current vacancy rate is low. Five new, sizable apartment complexes successfully opened since 2012, in addition to one smaller community, and the second phase of Woodlands of Charlottesville. All new apartment properties have leased quickly. In addition to the fourteen apartment properties listed in Table 9, there has been a considerable amount of apartment unit development to house the off-campus student market at UVA. These add to the household growth, but these additions have "removed" college students from renting at the new apartment communities under study, as much of the net growth of off-campus student housing demand is being served by new student-designed housing. The apartment properties under study are number-keyed to Map F. As shown, all of the comps are located in or near the City of Charlottesville. Three communities, City Walk, Locust Grove and Norcross Station, are located near the downtown. Two of these are newer communities. Three communities (Arden Place, Reserve at Belvedere, and Stonefield Commons) are located just north of Charlottesville, generally off Route 29. Avemore and Carriage Hill are located east of Charlottesville in Pantops and near Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital. Beacon on 5th is the only competitive apartment community located in Charlottesville, but outside the downtown area. It is located of 5th Street SW, north of the recently opened Wegmans-anchored 5th Street Station shopping center. The remaining four communities are located south of the City near 1-64. York Place apartment units are scattered throughout downtown Charlottesville in attractive adaptive reuse buildings. 37 Of note, four of these apartment properties are located in downtown and near the proposed East Jefferson Place site. Map F shows the location of these properties. None are located near the UV A Grounds and do not market to UVA students. 0 CQul\lryCiob Momiceflo6 ..<~> :s-~' i ·" "..,-9 ,- Map F- Locations of Competitive Apartments Next shown are photos of each of the competitive apartment properties under study. Most are multi-level garden communities. Norcross Station is the adaptive-reuse of the former Norcross Transfer and Storage Building that was originally constructed in 1924. It is an elevator served community. Locust Grove is an adaptive-reuse of a portion of the former Martha Jefferson Hospital and it, too, is served by an elevator. Stonefield 38 Commons and City Walk are the only new-construction communities served by elevators. York Place is comprised of five attractive downtown adaptive-reuse buildings. Beacon on 5th contains a mix of both garden and townhome style buildings. This is also the case for Terrace Greene Apartments in Ruckersville. The apartment units at Woodlands II are identical to those built in Phase I. City Walk, Reserve at Belvedere, Stonefield Commons, and Avemore are the more upscale of these apartment properties. Beacon on 51h - Completed Buildings City Walk Locust Grove 39 Reserve at Belvedere Stonefield Commons Avemore Jefferson Ridge Lakeside 40 Norcross Station Stone Creek Village Arden Place Woodlands I of Charlottesville Net Rental Rates Following in Table 10 are the current rents at each of the apartment communities under study. All of these units have individual washer/dryers included in the rent. For the sake of consistency, rents have been adjusted to exclude all utilities. The rents shown are clearly being accepted, as evidenced by the high occupancy rate in the market area. Of these apartment properties, City Walk is the only apartment community with structured parking. There is no charge for parking at this apartment property. 41 As shown, the average one-bedroom rents at the newer properties averages $1,329. This is compared to an average of $1,692 for the two-bedroom and $1,885 for the three bedroom units. The newer one-bedroom apartments, on average, are $150± more expensive than the older properties. This is compared to a difference of $250± for the two-bedroom and $270± for the three-bedroom units. Table 10: Rental Rates at Com~etitive Non-Student Apartment Communities, Charlottesville Market Area, Ma~, 2017 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Newer Pro~erties (2012+} Arden Place $1,195-$1,265 $1,490-$1,575 $1,810 Beacon on 5th 21 $1,317-$1,537 $1,436-$2,336 $1,645-$2,045 City Walk $1' 135-$1,420 $1,580-$1,830 -- Locust Grove 1I $1,158-$1,633 $1,587-$1,637 -- Reserve at Belvedere 31 $1,155-$1,355 $1,420-$1,620 $1,635-$1 ,835 Stonefield Commons $1,313-$1,468 $1,823-$1,973 $2,100-$2,200 11 (Average) ($1,329) ($1,692) ($1,885) Properties O~ened Before 2012 Avemore 41 $1 '170-$1 ,405 $1,445-$1,520 $1,545-$1 ,660 Carriage Hill $1,050-$1,290 $1,245-$1,770 $1,490-$1,820 Jefferson Ridge $1,099-$1,175 $1 ,345-$1,385 $1,675 Lakeside $995-$1,195 $1,185-$1,385 $1 ,375-$1,515 Norcross Station $988-$1,543 $1,347-$1,567 -- Stone Creek Village 51 $1,089-$1,279 $1,349-$1,599 $1,549-$1,709 Woodlands of Charlottesville - $1,380-$1,600 $1,650-$1,750 York Place $858-$1,408 $1 ,432-$1,587 -- (Average) ($1,182) ($1,446) ($1,618) Average $1,250 $1,552 $1,725 Notes: 11 Estimate 21Three-bedroom units are townhomes. 31 Larger two-bedroom units are townhome units 41 Larger two-bedroom units have attached garages. 51 Larger units are lotls. Source: Field and Telephone Survey by S. Patz and Associates, Inc. Rent Per Sq ua:re Foot This calculation is shown for the competitive apartment properties. The one- bedroom units have an average rent per square foot of $1.47. This is compared to $1.31 for the two-bedroom and $1.19 for the three-bedroom units. Of note is that the average rent per square at the newer apartment properties is higher than those of the pre-2012 built properties by: 42 ~ One-bedroom - $0.34 ~ Two-bedroom- $0.33 ~ Three-bedroom- $0.21 Table 11: Rent per Sguarc J'ou t li t Competitive Non-Student Ap:u·tmcnt Co m munit ies 1 Charlottesville Market Area 2 May, 2017 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Newer Pro~erties {2012+) Arden Place $1.64 $1.29 $1.27 Beacon on 51h $1.62 $1.32 $1.18 City Walk $1.76 $1.48 - Locust Grove $1.74 $1.84 - Reserve at Belvedere $1.41 $1.26 $1.25 Stonefield Commons $1 .68 $1.74 $1.59 (Average) ($1.64) ($1.49) ($1.32) Pro~erties O~encd Before 2012 Avemore $1.42 $1.23 $1.08 Carriage Hill $1.31 $1.13 $1.02 Jefferson Ridge $1.25 $1.02 $1.05 Lakeside $1.45 $1.24 $1.18 Norcross Station $1.19 $1.08 -- Stone Creek Village $1.17 $1.12 $1.07 Woodlands of Charlottesville - $1.31 $1.26 (Average) ($1.30) ($1.16) ($1.11) Average $1.47 $1.31 $1.19 Source: Field and Telephone Survey by S. Patz and Associates, Inc . Apartment Unit Sizes Data in Table 12 show the apartment unit sizes at the comps under study. The six new apartment properties have slightly smaller unit sizes compared with the pre- 2012 built apartment properties. Overall, the apartment unit sizes are spacious, generally at 800+ square feet for the one's, 1,100+ square feet for the two's, and 1,400 square feet for the three-bedroom apartment units. City Walk has smaller units, due likely to its "downtown" location. 43 Table 12: Unit Sizes of Com~etitive Non-Student AI!artment Communities 1 Charlottesville Market Area 1 Mal: 1 2017 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Newer Proi!erties (2012+} Arden Place 589-913 I ,168-1,203 1,421 Beacon on 51h 881 1,150-1,713 1,394-1,733 City Walk 597-853 1,083-1 ,227 -- Locust Grove 750-950 850-900 -- Reserve at Belvedere 805-980 1,085-1,320 1,320-1,460 Stonefield Commons 628-1,029 1,049-1,136 1,278-1,426 (Average) (813) (1,157) (1,432) Prouerties Ouened Before 2012 Avemore 649-1,165 1,209 1,479 Carriage Hill 831-954 1,142-1,533 1,627 Jefferson Ridge 877-948 1,300-1,384 1,600 Lakeside 754 1,040 1,220 Norcross Station 693-1,441 1,046-1,661 - Stone Creek Village 814-1,212 1'145-1 ,4 79 1,352-1,706 Woodlands of Charlottesville - 1,120-1,150 1,350 (Average) (924) (1,247) (1,468) Average 869 1,206 1,456 Source: Field and Telephone Survey by S. Patz and Associates, Inc. Apartment Unit Mix For the competitive apartment units under study, 38 percent are one-bedroom units, 47 percent are two-bedroom units and nearly 15 percent are three-bedroom units. The newer apartment properties have very few three's (6.2 percent). Only six percent of the apartment units built after 2012 are three-bedroom units. City Walk has no three- bedroom units. 44 Table 13: Unit Mix at Coml!etitive Non-Student Al!artment Communities, Charlottesville Market Area, Mar,2017 11 One- Two- Three- Total Units Uctlroom Bedroom Bedroom Newer Prol!erties {2012+} Arden Place 90 112 10 212 City Walk 147 154 0 301 Locust Grove 31 12 0 43 Reserve at Belvedere 89 161 44 294 Stonefield Commons ill ill 1.± ill (Subtotal) (473) (560) (68) (1, 101) Prol!erties Ol!ened Before 2012 Avemore 130 122 28 280 Carriage Hill 40 70 30 140 Jefferson Ridge 104 120 10 234 Lakeside 110 183 55 348 Norcross Station 65 23 0 88 Stone Creek Village 126 72 66 264 Woodlands of Charlottesville Q JjQ 150 300 (Subtotal) (575) (740) (339) (1,654) Total 1,048 1,300 407 2,755 Percent of Total 38.0% 47.2% 14.8% 100.0% Notes: 11 Where data is available. Source: Field and Telephone Survey by S. Patz and Associates, Inc. Apartment Amenities Almost all of the apartment communities under study are amenitized. All of the newer properties have both a clubhouse and fitness center. All, with the exception of Locust Grove, have an outdoor swimming pool. Business centers are also fairly common among the newer properties. In terms of the older properties, all but York Place and Norcross Station are fully amenitized with a clubhouse, business center, fitness center and playground. Most of the older properties also have lighted tennis courts and outdoor swimming pools. 45 Table 14: Co mmunity Amen ities nt Competitive Apartments, C harloltcsv illc Ma .-l