CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday, September 5, 2017 6:00 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL SPECIAL REPORT / PUBLIC HEARING: August 11/12 Community Response and Next Steps AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS 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 August 21, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) Employment for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Participants Grant – $66,667 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: VDOT Primary Extension Paving Project Funds – $52,085 (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Drug Treatment Court Grant Award – $294,140 (2nd of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award – $205,000 (2nd of 2 readings) f. APPROPRIATION: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Grant Application – $59,000 (2nd of 2 readings) g. APPROPRIATION: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant – One-Time Special Fund Family Check Up and Everyday Parenting Training Grant - $20,000 (2nd of 2 readings) h. APPROPRIATION: Greenstone on 5th Corporation Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage – $82,184 (2nd of 2 readings) i. APPROPRIATION: Albemarle County Reimbursement for the Central Library Water Infiltration Project – $22,789.83 (2nd of 2 readings) j. APPROPRIATION: Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy and Cost Recovery Program (2nd of 2 readings) k. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2017-2018 Certified Local Government Grant Funding for Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic Survey – $24,000 (1st of 2 readings) l. APPROPRIATION: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant – $250,902 (1st of 2 readings) m. RESOLUTION: Pollocks Branch Bridge – Design and Installation – $250,000 (1st of 1 reading) n. RESOLUTION: Parking Spaces Proposal Authorization (1st of 1 reading) o. ORDINANCE: Solar Energy Systems Zoning Text Amendment (2nd of 2 readings) 2. ORDINANCE*: Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District (2nd of 2 readings) – 30 min 3. PUBLIC HEARING / Stonefield Gas Easement (1st of 2 readings) – 15 min ORDINANCE* 4. RESOLUTION*: Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson Statues; Downtown Redesign Master Plan (1st of 1 reading) – 15 min 5. REPORT: Community Remembrance Project with the Equal Justice Initiative – 20 mins 6. RESOLUTION*: Liberation Day (1st of 1 reading) – 15 min 7. REPORT: Vinegar Hill Monument – 15 min OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC 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: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation of Grant Funds Presenter: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Staff Contacts: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Title: Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) Employment for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Participants Grant to the Office of Economic Development (OED) for Workforce Development Training Programs & Supportive Services - $66,667 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Office of Economic Development, has received a matching grant up to $50,000 from the Virginia Department of Social Services in order to provide workforce development training to individuals residing in the City of Charlottesville living at or below 200% poverty. The grant requires a 15 percent match of local dollars, with funding being used for workplace readiness/productivity skills training, specific technical training, and/or supportive services required for employment (e.g., childcare, transportation, rental assistance, etc.). Funds must be expended between July 1, 2017 and June, 30 2018. It is proposed that funding from the Workforce Investment Fund (P-00385) be used to provide the local match up to $16,667. Discussion: In July 2013, the City’s Strategic Action Team on Workforce Development (SAT) issued a report to City Council entitled, Growing Opportunity: A Path to Self-Sufficiency. The report, which was subsequently endorsed by Council, examines the barriers to employment for low-income City residents and makes recommendations on how to address these barriers. One of the recommendations is to “work to ensure that training programs align with the needs of new and existing businesses.” In an effort to make progress towards this recommendation, the SAT has been actively engaged in developing jobs-driven workforce development training programs in partnership with local employers. The flagship program, GO Driver, has been conducted six times and trains City residents to get their Class B Commercial Driver’s License and become Relief Transit Bus Operators with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) at a rate of $15.18 per hour. In addition to technical training, GO programs also include assistance with supportive services such as rental assistance, car repair, exam fees, etc. These costs, which average about $200 per participant, are also included as part of the programming. Other programs, such as GO CNA and/or a GO Skilled Trades Academy, were also recommended for funding through the use of grant funds. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This effort supports City Council’s “Economic Sustainability” vision and aligns directly with the SAT’s Growing Opportunity report that was approved by City Council in 2013. It also contributes to the following goals and objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan: Goal 4: A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy  Objective 4.1: Develop a quality workforce Goal 1: An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents  Objective 1.2: Prepare residents for the workforce It aligns with Chapter 3 on Economic Sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically Goal 6, which focuses on workforce development and being an effective partner in creating a well‐prepared and successful workforce. Community Engagement: Like practically all of the City’s workforce development efforts, its employment training programs are supported by numerous community agencies and organizations. Examples include: Piedmont Virginia Community College, Piedmont Workforce Network/Goodwill Industries of the Valleys, the Virginia Workforce Center – Charlottesville, Charlottesville Works Initiative, and employer partners. None of the work that is currently being done could be possible without this strong community engagement. Budgetary Impact: The required match of $16,667 will come from already appropriated funds in the Workforce Investment Fund (P-00385). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If grant funds are not appropriated, more local dollars will have to be used for training or fewer low- income, underemployed City residents will be able to be trained. Attachments:  VDSS Subrecipient Agreement  VDSS Grant Application APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) Employment for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) Participants Grant $66,667 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funds from the Virginia Department of Social Services in the amount of $50,000 requiring a $16,667 in local in-kind match provided by the Office of Economic Development through the Workforce Investment Fund; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to support workforce development training programs provided by the Office of Economic Development; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from June 30, 2017 and July 1. 2018; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $66,667 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $50,000 $50,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900284 G/L: 430120 State/Fed pass thru $50,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900284 G/L: 498010 Transfers from Other Funds Expenditures - $66,667 $66,667 Fund: 209 IO: 1900284 G/L: 599999 Lump Sum Transfer To - $16,667 $16,667 Fund: 245 WBS: P-00385 G/L: 561209 Transfer to State Grants BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $50,000 from the Virginia Department of Social Services and the matching in-kind funds from the Office of Economic Development through the Workforce Investment Fund. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT Agreement Number: BEN-17-056-01 THIS AGREEMENT for a subgrant award is entered into this 1st day of July 2017, by City of Charlottesville, Office of Economic Development hereinafter called the “Subrecipient” and Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Social Services, Division of Benefit Programs called the “VDSS or Grantee.” WITNESSETH that the Subrecipient and the VDSS, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, agree as follows: SCOPE OF AGREEMENT: The Subrecipient shall provide the services to the VDSS as set forth in the Agreement Documents. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: From July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT: The Subrecipient shall be paid by the VDSS a maximum reimbursement of $ 50,000.00 upon submission of itemized invoices as specified in Section X, Payment Terms of the Request for Applications (RFA). The agreement documents shall consist of: (1) This signed form; (2) The Request for Application dated April 7, 2017; (3) Addendum #1, Dated April 25, 2017, Addendum #2 dated May 12, 2017 and Addendum #3 dated May 17, 2017; and (4) The Subrecipient’s Application dated May 22, 2017, all of which documents are incorporated herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY: _____________________________________ BY: ________________________________________ (Signature) (Signature) NAME: ____________________________________ NAME: ______________________________________ (Print) (Print) TITLE: ___________________________________ TITLE: ______________________________________ DATE: ____________________________________ TITLE: _______________________________________ Note: This public body does not discriminate against faith-based organizations in accordance with the Code of Virginia, § 2.2- 4343.1 or against an applicant because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, status as a service disabled veteran, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation of State Funds (2nd reading) Presenters: Paul Oberdorfer, Director Public Works Staff Contacts: Paul Oberdorfer, Director Public Works Title: VDOT Primary Extension Paving Project Funds - $52,085 Background: Based on a legislative change that was effective July 1, 2014, Virginia Code section 33.1-23.1 (B) authorizes the set-aside of up to $125,000,000 for the reconstruction of interstate, primary, and primary extension routes. Funding for the reconstruction of primary extensions – routes which are both locally maintained and have a primary route number (e.g. Route 250) – is made available using a competitive application process. Awards are made based on a combination of road condition and traffic volume. Assessment of road condition is performed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The City of Charlottesville has qualified to receive funds to perform one paving project, requiring a local financial contribution and adoption of a Resolution authorizing the execution of a formal agreement and Appropriation of funds estimated for reimbursement. Discussion: The scope of the awarded projects includes all work necessary to bring the roadway and curb ramps into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The project details are listed below: Route 250 Business Eastbound (Main Street) from West Main Street to Preston Avenue (scope to include the upgrade of 1 curb ramp). VDOT Reimbursement $52,085 Local Share $1,611 Total Project Cost $53,696 This program is a promising relief for CIP funding sources dedicated to street paving projects which are stretched very thin. Per the recently completed Street Survey, 21% of City streets are eligible for paving, at an estimated cost of more than $7.8 million dollars. The high traffic volume of Charlottesville’s streets compared to others in the VDOT Culpepper District will continue to make paving projects in Charlottesville very competitive for the duration of this program. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This project supports City Council’s “Smart, Citizen-Focus Government” vision. It contributes to Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, to “be a well-managed and successful organization”, and objective 4.1, to “align resources with City’s strategic plan”. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: No new local funding will be required. The local contribution will be funded through previously appropriated street paving CIP funds. Appropriation of state funds for these projects will result in an estimated net avoided cost of $52,085. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Appropriation. (Resolution was approved 8/21/2017. Alternatives: Pay the full cost of these projects. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Primary Extension Paving Funds - $52,085.00 WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation and the City of Charlottesville desire to execute a standard Project Administration Agreement for two state-aided projects, referenced as Virginia Department of Transportation Project Number 6250-104-347 (UPC 111325); WHEREAS, said agreement requires that the City of Charlottesville complete the aforementioned projects before requesting reimbursement for the non-local share of projects costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $52,085.00 is appropriated in the following manner: Revenue - $52,085.00 Fund: 426 Internal Order: SS-009 G/L Account: 430110 Expenditures - $52,085.00 Fund: 426 Internal Order: SS-009 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Approve and appropriate grant funds Presenter: Susan Morrow, Offenders Aid and Restoration Staff Contact: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Susan Morrow, Offenders Aid and Restoration Title: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Drug Treatment Court Grant Award - $294,140 Background: The City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court, has received a grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (hereinafter SAMHSA), a division of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the amount of $294,140 for operations of the drug court program, which is operated by Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.). The City of Charlottesville serves as fiscal agent for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Drug Treatment Court Grant. Discussion: In its twentieth year of operation, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court is a supervised 12 month drug treatment program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for offenders. Drug Court is a specialized docket within the existing structure of the court system given the responsibility to handle cases involving non- violent adult felony offenders who are addicted to drugs. The program uses the power of the court to assist offenders with moderate to severe substance use disorders to achieve recovery through a combined system of intensive supervision, drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and regular court appearances. The SAMHSA grant will fund enhancements that are intended to close current gaps in the drug court treatment continuum, support consumer specific clinical needs and create a supportive environment that connects participants with a broader, community-based system of services and support, bridging the gap between treatment and recovery communities. All of the new enhancements are evidence based and are expected to improve retention rates and graduation rates while reducing recidivism among drug court participants and graduates. The total budget for the SAMHSA grant is $294,140. There is no match. The current total program budget for the Drug Court is $328,361 and includes three funding sources: Supreme Court of VA - $205,000 City of Charlottesville: $70,224, which has already been appropriated Albemarle County: $53,137, which has already been appropriated Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This program supports Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City, Objective 2.2 Meet the safety needs of victims and reduce the risk of re-occurrence/re-victimization, and Objective 2.3 Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. The drug court is a valuable, less expensive alternative to incarceration for certain substance dependent criminal offenders which utilizes a blend of court-ordered supervision, drug testing, drug and mental health treatment services, court appearances, and behavioral sanctions and incentives to reduce recidivism and drug use among participants beyond what is observed after incarceration alone. Community Engagement: The Drug Treatment Court is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with non- violent criminal offenders with drug driven crimes who are at a high level of risk for reoffending due to active addictions and long standing patterns of criminal behavior. By collaborating with the Court system, Region Ten Community Services Board, and the Sheriff’s department, the Drug Treatment Court provides these offenders with a highly structured, rigorously supervised system of treatment and criminal case processing that results in a significant reduction in recidivism rates for program participants and graduates. Participants gain access to the Drug Treatment Court through referrals from police, probation, magistrates, defense attorneys and other local stakeholders. Participants have active criminal cases pending in the Circuit Court. If they successfully complete the program which takes a minimum of 12 months and requires a minimum of 12 months substance free, participants may have their pending charges reduced or dismissed. If participants are unsuccessful and have to be terminated from the program, they return to court to face their original charges. Successful Drug Treatment Court participants return the community’s investment in them by maintaining full time, tax paying employment, providing for and taking care of their children and families including paying off back child support, behaving as good role models in the community, and supporting the recovery community in Charlottesville. Budgetary Impact: There is no local match required for the SAMHSA grant. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award $294,140 WHEREAS, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a division of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the amount of $294,140 for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Drug Court Treatment Court in order to fund salaries, benefits, and operating expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville serves as the fiscal agent for this grant program; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period October 1, 2017 through September 29, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $294,140, received as a grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $294,140 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900283 G/L Account: 431110 Expenditures $294,140 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900283 G/L Account: 530550 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $294,140 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Approve and appropriate grant funds Presenter: Susan Morrow, Offenders Aid and Restoration Staff Contact: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Susan Morrow, Offender Aid and Restoration Title: Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award - $205,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court, has received the Byrne Grant from the Supreme Court of Virginia in the amount of $205,000 for operations of the drug court program, which is operated by Offender Aid and Restoration (O.A.R.). The City of Charlottesville serves as fiscal agent for the Drug Court Byrne Grant. Discussion: In its eighteenth year of operation, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court is a supervised 12 month drug treatment program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for offenders. Drug Court is a specialized docket within the existing structure of the court system given the responsibility to handle cases involving non- violent adult felony offenders who are addicted to drugs. The program uses the power of the court to assist non-violent drug offenders to achieve recovery through a combined system of intensive supervision, drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and regular court appearances. The total program budget is $328,361 and includes three funding sources: Supreme Court of VA - $205,000 City of Charlottesville: $70,224, which has already been appropriated Albemarle County: $53,137, which has already been appropriated In addition to the above budget and funding sources, a federal grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been awarded to the Drug Court. The grant will provide for enhancements to the Drug Court. Activities under the grant are scheduled to begin on October 1, 2017. The approved budget for the grant is $294,140 for the first year. It is a three year grant. No match is required. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: This program supports Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City, Objective 2.2 Meet the safety needs of victims and reduce the risk of re-occurrence/re-victimization, and Objective 2.3 Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. The drug court is a valuable, less expensive alternative to incarceration for certain substance dependent criminal offenders which utilizes a blend of court-ordered supervision, drug testing, drug and mental health treatment services, court appearances, and behavioral sanctions and incentives to reduce recidivism and drug use among participants beyond what is observed after incarceration alone. Community Engagement: The Drug Treatment Court is a direct service provider and is engaged daily with non- violent criminal offenders with drug driven crimes who are at a high level of risk for reoffending due to active addictions and long standing patterns of criminal behavior. By collaborating with the Court system, Region Ten Community Services Board, and the Sheriff’s department, the Drug Treatment Court provides these offenders with a highly structured, rigorously supervised system of treatment and criminal case processing that results in a significant reduction in recidivism rates for program participants and graduates. Participants gain access to the Drug Treatment Court through referrals from police, probation, magistrates, defense attorneys and other local stakeholders. Participants have active criminal cases pending in the Circuit Court. If they successfully complete the program which takes a minimum of 12 months and requires a minimum of 12 months substance free, participants may have their pending charges reduced or dismissed. If participants are unsuccessful and have to be terminated from the program, they return to court to face their original charges. Successful Drug Treatment Court participants return the community’s investment in them by maintaining full time, tax paying employment, providing for and taking care of their children and families including paying off back child support, behaving as good role models in the community, and supporting the recovery community in Charlottesville. Budgetary Impact: The City’s match for this grant, $70,224, was appropriated as part of the FY 2018 Council Approved Budget and is part of the City’s General Fund contribution to Offender Aid and Restoration. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Charlottesville/Albemarle Adult Drug Treatment Court Grant Award $205,000 WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Virginia awarded the Byrne Grant in the amount of $205,000 for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Drug Court Treatment Court in order to fund salaries, benefits, and operating expenses; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville serves as the fiscal agent for this grant program; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County both have dedicated local matches to this grant, totaling $123,361; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $205,000, received as a grant from the Supreme Court of Virginia, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $205,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900285 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures $205,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900285 G/L Account: 530550 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $205,000 from the Supreme Court of Virginia. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Request for Appropriation - Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Grant Application Presenter: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Staff Contacts: Amanda Poncy, Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator; Kyle Rodland, Safe Routes to School Coordinator Title: Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Grant Application - $59,000 Background: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has awarded the City of Charlottesville with a Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure (Activities and Programs) Grant of $59,000. This grant can be used to fund education, encouragement, evaluation and enforcement programs related to Safe Routes to School. The Non-Infrastructure Grant can also be used to fund a SRTS coordinator. A SRTS Coordinator is a part- or full-time SRTS advocate who works within a school division to promote and facilitate Safe Routes to School activities at a minimum of three schools in the division. Last year, the city received a non-infrastructure grant in the amount of $56,000 to fund a part- time coordinator and associated program budget to manage, train, and expand Safe Routes to School programming city-wide. The grant provides a dedicated champion to working within schools to provide education, encouragement and evaluation activities needed to support active transportation for K-8 students. Discussion: As part of the grant application, the City was required to update the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Activities and Programs Plan (APP), a written document that outlines a community’s intentions for enabling and encouraging students to engage in active transportation (i.e. walking or bicycling) as they travel to and from school. The plan details the number of students living within ¼ to 2 miles of their school and demonstrates the potential benefits that can be accrued from a coordinate SRTS program (nearly 30% of students live within ½ mile of school and nearly 70% live within 1 mile of school). The SRTS APP was originally created through a team-based approach that involved key community stakeholders and members of the public in both identifying key behavior-related to barriers to active transportation and, using the four non-infrastructure related E’s (education, encouragement, enforcement and evaluation) to address them. The APP update reflects minimal changes from last year’s plan, but emphasizes lessons learned since our Coordinator was hired in October 2016. The SRTS Activities and Programs Plan will continue to serve as a guiding document to assist in promoting, encouraging, and enabling walking and bicycling to school. The $59,000 grant appropriation will fund a part-time Safe Routes to School Coordinator and the supplies needed to implement the recommendations included in the APP for the 2017-2018 school year. As a reimbursable grant, costs will be incurred by Neighborhood Development Services and reimbursed by VDOT. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This initiative supports Council’s Vision to be a “Connected Community” (“the City of Charlottesville is part of a comprehensive, regional transportation system that enables citizens of all ages and incomes to easily navigate our community”) and “America’s Healthiest City (“we have a community-wide commitment to personal fitness and wellness, and all residents enjoy our outstanding recreational facilities, walking trails, and safe routes to schools”). In addition, the project contributes to Goals 2 and 3 of the Strategic Plan, to be a Healthy and Safe Community and A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment. The initiative further implements recommendations within the Comprehensive Plan (2013) and supports the City's Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Resolution. Community Engagement: This grant application implements one of the programming recommendations included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (adopted 2015), which included significant public involvement. Further, city staff from Neighborhood Development Services worked with staff from the Thomas Jefferson Health District and Charlottesville City Schools (Physical Education and Pupil Transportation) to create a Safe Routes to School Task Force that was responsible for outlining elements of a city-wide Safe Routes to School Activities and Programs Plan (APP). The task force included representatives from city schools, community organizations, multiple city departments (NDS, PW, Parks), as well as health and enforcement disciplines. The APP was developed by the task force with input from parents (via Parent Survey) and further discussed/refined at public meeting in February 2016. Budgetary Impact: The grant appropriation will provide funding (100% reimbursable) for both a part-time Safe Routes to School Coordinator and the supporting activities included in the Activities and Programs plan. The grant will fund a position for 12 months with an opportunity to reapply for funding for one additional year. While funding will be provided at 100%, local partners will provide both cash and in-kind donations to demonstrate program sustainability. Future grants could require a 20% match (cash or in-kind donations are acceptable). Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of the grant funds. Alternatives: If grants funds are not appropriated, Safe Routes to School programming will continue in an ad- hoc fashion with assistance from community partners and parent volunteers. Attachments: Safe Routes to School Activities and Programs Plan http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood­ development-services/transportation/bicycle-and-pedestrian/safe-routes-to-school Resolution Supporting Safe Routes to School Projects adopted by City Council on April 3, 2017; Appropriation RESOLUTION Supporting Safe Routes to School (“SRTS”) Projects WHEREAS, obesity is one of the most serious threats to American public health, ranking third among preventable causes of death in the United States; WHEREAS, motor vehicle crashes are also a leading cause of death and injury to children; WHEREAS, between 1969 and 2009 the percentage of children walking and biking to school dramatically declined from 48 percent to 13 percent; WHEREAS, the Safe Routes to School program, created by Congress in 2005, aimed to increase the number of children engaged in active transportation when traveling to school by funding (1) infrastructure projects, located within two miles of a public school, that directly increase safety and convenience for public school children walking and/or biking to school, and (2) non- infrastructure projects designed to encourage public school children to walk and bicycle to school; WHEREAS, Safe Routes to School projects are a proven, effective approach to increasing the number of children actively traveling to school by foot or bike; WHEREAS, Safe Routes to School projects provide important health, safety, and environmental benefits for children, including reducing risk of obesity/chronic disease and pedestrian/bicycle injuries as well as improving air quality; WHEREAS, the need for Safe Routes to School projects is especially strong in low-income areas, which suffer from a disproportionately high incidence of both childhood obesity/chronic disease and pedestrian and bicycle injuries and often have inferior pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; WHEREAS, Safe Routes to School projects make it safer and more convenient for all residents to walk and bike to destinations, further promoting public health; WHEREAS, a goal of the City of Charlottesville’s current Comprehensive Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Complete Streets Resolution and Healthy Eating Active Living Resolution supports active transportation options, which can be met in part by implementation of Safe Routes to School projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Charlottesville affirms its commitment to active transportation and supporting Safe Routes to School infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects. APPROPRIATION Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) Non-Infrastructure Grants $59,000 WHEREAS, the Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS) non-infrastructure grant, providing Federal payments for education, encouragement, evaluation and enforcement programs to promote safe walking and bicycling to school has been awarded the City of Charlottesville, in the amount of $59,000; WHEREAS, the SRTS program is a 100% reimbursement program requiring the City to meet all federal guidelines to qualify; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $59,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 430120 Expenses $26,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 519999 $33,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3901008000 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $59,000 from the Virginia Department of Transportation. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation Presenter: Rory Carpenter, Human Services Department Staff Contacts: Rory Carpenter, Human Services Department Kaki Dimock, Director of Human Services Title: Juvenile Accountability Block Grant – One-Time Special Fund Family Check Up and Everyday Parenting Training Grant - $20,000 Background: The Charlottesville Department of Human Services has received an $18,000 Juvenile Accountability Block Grant One-Time Special Fund award from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services with a match of $2,000 from the Charlottesville Department of Human Services to provide Family Check-Up and Everyday Parenting Program training in Charlottesville in order to develop and provide these programs for families in need of additional parenting support. Discussion: The Family Check-Up and Everyday Parenting Programs are evidence-based and strengths-based interventions that reduce children’s problem behaviors by improving parenting and family management practices. The Family Check-Up Program integrates assessment with motivation- enhancement strategies to tailor intervention goals to meet the unique needs of each child and family and to increase family engagement. The Everyday Parenting Curriculum is a parent management-training program offered to parents as a follow-up service that can be tailored to meet the specific needs of individual families. The trainings will be provided by the REACH Institute of Arizona State University and will be held in Charlottesville in October. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The Family Check-Up and Everyday Parenting Training grant aligns with the City of Charlottesville's Strategic Plan - Goal 2, Objective 2.3 as follows: Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City Objective 2.3: Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. Community Engagement: The grant will engage the community by providing parenting training opportunities for Charlottesville families. Partnering with Region Ten will ensure that we reach a broad spectrum of the community. Budgetary Impact: There is no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. The terms of the award require a local match of $2,000 which will be provided by the Charlottesville Department of Human Services. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If the grant funds are not appropriated, the funds would have to be returned and the Family Check Up and Everyday Parenting training would not be provided. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Juvenile Accountability Block Grant – One-Time Special Fund Family Check Up and Everyday Parenting Training Grant $20,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $18,000 in Federal Funds from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, and $2,000 in Matching Funds from the Charlottesville Department of Human Services for a total award of $20,000 to provide Family Check Up and Everyday Parenting training; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from July 1, 2017 through October 31, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $20,000 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $ 18,000 Fund: 209 Order: 1900288 G/L Account: 430120 $ 2,000 Fund: 209 Order: 1900288 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures $ 20,000 Fund: 209 Order: 1900288 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer $ 2,000 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 3411001000 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $18,000 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Approve appropriation for sponsorship agreement Presenter: Lieutenant T.V. McKean, Police Department Staff Contacts: Lieutenant T.V. McKean, Police Department Title: Greenstone on 5th Corporation Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage -- $82,184 Background: Greenstone on 5th Corporation would like to enter into a Sponsorship Agreement whereby a donation will be made to the Charlottesville Police Department for $82,184 to support enhanced police coverage within and adjacent to Greenstone on 5th Apartments. This donation will be received in four equal quarterly installments to be received during FY18. The installments will be received at the beginning of the months: July, October, January, and April. Discussion: Enhanced coverage involves police officers being assigned to public patrol duties in the sponsored coverage area in addition to those officers who could be assigned within normal budgetary constraints. Acceptance of the donation under this arrangement will not require officers to be pulled away from other areas of coverage within the City. Even in these circumstances the Chief will have full authority to deploy the officers elsewhere to meet operational necessities. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This agreement supports Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan: A Healthy and Safe City. It provides for extra Police presence in the agreed upon area, increasing visibility and response times. Community Engagement: n/a Budgetary Impact: This Sponsorship agreement is a donation that will cover all costs associated with the added security, with no cost to the City. The funds will be appropriated to the General Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation funds. Alternatives: The alternative is not to approve this appropriation, which would result in the inability to provide enhanced coverage to the sponsored coverage area. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Greenstone on 5th Sponsorship Agreement for Enhanced Police Coverage $82,184 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has entered into an agreement with Greenstone on 5th Corporation to fund enhanced police coverage for the area of Greenstone on 5th Apartments, including salary, equipment, technology and related administrative expenses associated with provisions of such enhanced coverage. NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $82,184, to be received as a donation from Greenstone on 5th Corporation. Revenues - $82,184 $82,184 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000113 G/L Account: 451999 Expenditures - $82,184 $75,197 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000113 G/L Account: 510060 $ 6,987 Fund: 105 Internal Order: 2000113 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Approve Appropriation of Reimbursement Presenter: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Staff Contacts: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget & Management Analyst, Budget and Performance Management Title: Appropriation of Albemarle County Reimbursement for the Central Library Water Infiltration Project – $22,789.83 Background: The City of Charlottesville Facilities Development Division oversees capital projects for jointly owned buildings with Albemarle County. The City invoices the County on a monthly basis to recover the County’s share of project expenses associated with these joint projects. Under this agreement, the City will receive reimbursements totaling $22,789.83 for expenses related to the recently completed Gordon Avenue Library Ceiling & Lighting Replacement Project. Discussion: Appropriation of these funds is necessary to replenish the Facilities Repair Lump Sum Account (FR-001) for project related expenses. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This request supports City Council’s “Smart, Citizen-Focused Government “vision. It contributes to Goal 4 of the Strategic Plan, to be a well-managed and successful organization, and objective 4.1, to align resources with the City’s strategic plan. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: Funds have been expensed from the Facilities Repair Lump Sum Account (FR-001) and the reimbursement is intended to replenish the project budget for the County’s portion of those expenses. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of the reimbursement funds. Alternatives: If reimbursement funds are not appropriated, the Facilities Repair Lump Sum Account (FR-001) will reflect a deficient balance. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Albemarle County Reimbursement for the Gordon Avenue Library Ceiling & Lighting Replacement Project - $22,789.83 WHEREAS, Albemarle County was billed by the City of Charlottesville in the amount of $22,789.83. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that $22,789.83 from Albemarle County is to be appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $22,789.83 Fund: 107 Funded Program: FR-001 (P-00900) G/L Account: 432030 Expenditures - $22,789.83 Fund: 107 Funded Program: FR-001 (P-00900) G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of reimbursement funds from Albemarle County; and that any future capital project reimbursements from Albemarle County to the Facilities Repair Fund (107), above what was originally appropriated, shall automatically appropriate upon receipt of funds. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Approve the following: APPROPRIATION: Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy and Cost Recovery Program Appropriation (2nd reading) Staff Contacts: Andrew Baxter, Fire Chief, Charlottesville Fire Department Title: Charlottesville Fire Department and Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy and Cost Recovery Program Background: City Staff and leadership from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) have recognized the need for a new, strategic approach to the delivery of EMS transport services in the City. Implementation of the Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy (EMS SIS) and Cost Recovery Program will help to ensure the provision of timely, efficient, and effective EMS transport services for the community. Funding for the new strategy will be provided in large part through the implementation of an EMS Cost Recovery Program. A Work Session on the EMS SIS and Cost Recovery Program was held on June 19, 2017. A Public Hearing was held on July 17, 2017. The actions required tonight consist of the first of two readings on the appropriation of revenues and expenditures required to implement the EMS SIS and Cost Recovery Program and the approval of two resolutions, one to establish the fee schedule for ambulance transport services and the second to fund the purchase of mobile data computers for the CARS. Discussion: Since 1960, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS), an all-volunteer, not-for-profit organization, has been the primary provider of EMS transport services in the City. Since 2014, the Charlottesville Fire Department (CFD) has provided staffing support to CARS through a Memorandum of Understanding. This supplemental staffing model has provided some stability to daytime CARS staffing. However, several factors make the current approach less than optimal, including increased call demand, challenges with developing and retaining experienced volunteer EMS Advanced Life Support (ALS) providers, increased costs associated with the delivery of more complex EMS care, and decreasing community contributions to CARS annual fund drive. Over the course of the last 18 months, City staff and CARS leadership have collaborated to develop a comprehensive strategy that will add needed EMS transport capacity and provide for the more consistent availability of ALS providers at the medic-level. A volunteer-career combination EMS system will provide the needed EMS transport and ALS capacity while leveraging both the continued commitment of CARS volunteers and the consistency in staffing provided by CFD career firefighter-EMT’s and firefighter-medics. The focus of the combination EMS transport system will be on the provision of high-performance EMS while ensuring the health and safety of the community and its responders. Funding for the City of Charlottesville Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy will largely be provided through the implementation of an EMS Cost Recovery Program. This strategy will ensure adequate EMS transport capacity in the following ways: supporting three additional full-time sworn firefighter- EMT positions; providing operational funding for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad; and providing for one civilian EMS billing specialist/privacy officer. The following chart provides a combined overview of the projected revenues and expenses for the program for FY18. Revenue EMS Billing $720,000 General Fund Appropriation 32,391 TOTAL REVENUES $752,391 Expenditures Salaries and Benefits $388,288 Other Operating Expenses 17,292 Contribution to CARS 346,811 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $752,391 In order to achieve the projected revenue recovery from the EMS Cost Recovery Program, billing rates for ambulance transport services will be set by Council in the form of a resolution. Fees for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vehicle transport service are proposed at: For Basic Life Support (BLS) transport services: $500. BLS is defined as the emergency response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by a BLS Technician and no Advanced Life Support procedures. For Advanced Life Support Level 1 (ALS1): $600. ALS1 is defined as the emergency response and transport of a patient that requires assessment and treatment by an ALS Technician and one or more Advanced Life Support procedures. For Advanced Life Support Level 2 (ALS2): $850. ALS2 is defined as the transport of a patient that requires defibrillation, pacing, intubation, or the administration of 3 or more Schedule IV medications. For Ground Transport Miles (GTM): $15.00/mile. GTM is defined as the charge per patient transport mile. Mobile data computers (MDC’s) are utilized on ambulances and other EMS vehicles to manage the efficient deployment of resources and to capture data that is required for patient care, quality improvement processes, and cost recovery purposes. MDC’s provide a functional, field-based platform for both the New World CAD mobile and Image Trend Elite electronic patient care reporting software suites. New World CAD mobile allows ambulances and other EMS response vehicles to communicate seamlessly with the Emergency Communications Center to receive emergency calls for service based on the real-time location of the unit. This system allows for the closest appropriate unit to be assigned to each emergency incident. The Image Trend Elite software suite supports the collection of required patient care data and is an essential element in EMS system quality improvement efforts and the EMS cost recovery program. MDC’s are an essential, foundational component of any sophisticated, data-driven EMS system. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The implementation of the EMS System Improvement Strategy supports Goal 2 of the City’s Strategic Plan, A Healthy and Safe City; objectives 2.1 & 2.3. Community Engagement: CFD and CARS leadership have collaborated for the last 18 months to develop a comprehensive strategy for EMS system improvement. A worksession was held on June 19, 2017 and a public hearing on July 17, 2017 in Council chambers. Budgetary Impact: Revenue from the EMS Cost Recovery Program (EMS System Fund) will partially offset expenditures associated with supporting a combination volunteer-career EMS system. Estimated FY18 revenues for the EMS Cost Recovery Program are $720,000 based on current call volume and area recovery rates and $32,391 will be funded from the General Fund. Funding for the Mobile Data Computers ($60,000) would be transferred from previously appropriated funding in the CIP Contingency account. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation for the EMS System Improvement Strategy and Cost Recovery Program, approval of the Resolution to establish a fee schedule for ambulance transport billing, and approval of a resolution to transfer capital contingency funds for the purchase of MDC’s for CARS. Alternatives: If the funding is not approved, the EMS transport system will not develop in a manner consistent with other services provided by the City. Attachments: • EMS System Improvement Strategy Start Up Revenues and Expenditures • EMS Cost Recovery Program Frequently Asked Questions APPROPRIATION. Charlottesville Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy $752,391 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, in collaboration with the Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) will implement an Emergency Medical Services System Improvement Strategy; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding has been developed between the City of Charlottesville and CARS detailing program responsibilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia will implement an Emergency Medical Services Cost Recovery program to help offset the costs of said strategy; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $752,391 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - EMS Cost Recovery $720,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 3201007000 Expenditures –EMS Operations $752,391 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 3201007000 Salaries and Benefits – $388,288 Other Expenses – $17,292 City Contribution to CARS – $346,811 EMS Cost Recovery Program Start-Up Revenues and Expenditures Revenues FY18 FY19 Notes/Comments FY18 Assumes 6 months of billing revenue collection due to estimated lag time between when service is provided and billing Ambulance Service Billing $ 720,000 $ 1,440,000 revenue is collected. REVENUE TOTAL $ 720,000 $ 1,440,000 Expenditures FY18 FY19 Notes/Comments 24 Hour CFD Medic Unit Represents cost of 3 new FTE's - FY 18 represents 10 months of Salary and Benefits $ 208,405 $ 255,088 expenses. First year of medical supplies and fuel will be absorbed in current CFD operating budget ($29,025), but need to budget for those Operational Costs 17,292 49,776 costs beginning in year 2 Sub-Total $ 225,697 $ 304,864 Peak Activity Unit Overtime rates for 1 Firefighter- EMT & 1 Firefighter-Medic (M-F, 7:00-18:00) - FY 18 represents 10 Daytime Overtime Staffing 121,550 148,777 months of expenses. Sub-Total $ 121,550 $ 148,777 EMS Billing Specialist Salary and Benefits 58,333 70,000 Sub-Total $ 58,333 $ 70,000 CARS FY18 represents 10 months of payment and is based on the percentage of the CARS Operating budget that is proportionate to the percentage of CARS calls that Contribution to CARS 346,811 424,496 are run in the City. Sub-Total $ 346,811 $ 424,496 EXPENDITURE TOTAL $ 752,391 $ 948,137 FUNDING (GAP)/BALANCE $(32,391) $ 491,863 The FY18 Budget figures represent 10 months of expenses based upon the projected start date for the billing program. The FY19 figures represent 12 months of service. One-Time/Capital Costs FY18 FY19 Cost to outfit 12 CARS vehicles with same mobile data computers as CFD - necessary for billing and closest unit deployment model and will be funded through CIP Mobile Data Computers $ 60,000 $ - Contingency. City of Charlottesville Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Cost Recovery Program Frequently Asked Questions I. General Questions Q: What is the EMS Cost Recovery Program? A: EMS cost recovery is the process of obtaining financial reimbursement for the cost of providing medically necessary ambulance transportation. The EMS cost recovery program will not and is not designed to cover all EMS system costs but will provide a stable financial foundation. The program will be funded through available reimbursements from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance companies. No one will ever be denied service based on their ability to pay or any outstanding bills. ALWAYS call 911 in the event of an emergency; we will ALWAYS be ready to answer your call 24/7/365. Q: How will this program affect me? Will I get a bill? A: City residents covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance will not be billed for any balances due after applicable insurance payments have been collected. City residents without insurance will not be billed at all. Non-City residents will receive a bill for any remaining balance after all insurance reimbursement has been obtained. Non-City residents, in cases of hardship, may apply to the City for a hardship waiver once all applicable insurance payments have been collected. No one will ever be denied emergency service because of the EMS cost recovery program. If a patient calls 911 but is not transported, there is no charge. ALWAYS call 911 in the event of an emergency; we will ALWAYS be ready to answer your call 24/7/365. Q: Why is the City of Charlottesville engaging in EMS cost recovery? A: Emergency medical calls account for a large percentage of the total number of emergency services calls in the City. For example, in 2016, there were over 5,000 EMS incidents in the City and 54% of Charlottesville Fire Department responses were for EMS incidents. In the same period, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad transported over 5,000 patients from City incidents to area hospitals. As the need for emergency medical services continues to grow, the City, like many other localities, is seeking ways to fund these services without relying solely on local tax revenue or donations to local volunteer agencies. EMS cost recovery permits localities to recover system costs from those individuals who benefit directly from EMS delivery, including non-City residents, with the vast majority of the costs collected from Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies. The EMS cost recovery program will be utilized to support the volunteers at the Charlottesville- Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS), will provide a funding stream to support additional Charlottesville firefighters to staff ambulances in the City, and will support the acquisition and deployment of sophisticated EMS equipment. Q: Will the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) bill for service in the City? A: Yes. Both CARS and Charlottesville Fire Department staffed ambulances will bill for service as part of the EMS cost recovery program. Q: Is the fire department “taking over” the rescue squad? A: No. The rescue squad will remain a non-profit, volunteer agency but will receive operational funding from revenue generated through the EMS cost recovery program. CARS and the City will continue to closely collaborate to ensure the provision of high-quality emergency medical services in the City. Q: How much money will be recovered? A: The City estimates that between $1M and $1.4M will be recovered annually. These funds will be used to support and strengthen the City’s combination volunteer-career EMS system. Q: What other localities in this area have EMS cost recovery programs? A: Nearly 80% of Virginia residents live in localities that bill for EMS transport. Of the 38 independent cities in Virginia, 37 currently have some form of EMS billing in place to recover expenses and offset system costs. Localities in our region including Albemarle, Augusta, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, Nelson, Orange, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Rockingham bill for service, as do Richmond, Chesterfield, Hanover, Stafford, and Spotsylvania. II. How Billing Works Q: How will the billing process work? A: The City of Charlottesville has contracted with a billing company, Digitech Computer, to administer the EMS billing process. Once patient information is collected, a claim form will be forwarded to the patient’s insurance provider, Medicare, or Medicaid. Q: Will City residents be required to pay any co-payment or deductible that may be included in their insurance policy? A: No. Co-pays and deductibles will be waived for City residents. Taxes paid by City residents are considered co-payments for City residents. Q: Will visitors and non-City residents be charged a co-payment? A: Yes. Only City residents will have their co-payments and deductibles waived. Q: What are the billing rates for this EMS service? A: Fees for ambulance transport range from $500 - $850 per transport, depending on the level of EMS care required by the patient. Rates are established by City Council. Q: If an ambulance comes to my house but I don’t need transport, will I receive a bill? A: No. Fees are recovered only if a patient is transported. Q: If a fire engine comes to my house to provide EMS care, will I receive a bill? A: No. EMS first-response will remain a core municipal service provided by the Charlottesville Fire Department. There is no fee for EMS first-response services. Fees are only recovered if a patient is transported in an ambulance to the hospital. Q: Who do I contact with questions about my bill? A: The City’s billing company, Digitech Computer, has customer service representatives to handle your billing and insurance questions at (888) 248-7936. III. Ability to Pay What if I don’t have insurance and am unable to pay or have insurance but am unable to pay any balances due? The City of Charlottesville EMS cost recovery program includes compassionate billing provisions. If the patient is a City resident, he/she will not be responsible for any balance due once all applicable insurance payments have been collected. If the patient is not a City resident and cannot pay, he/she may request a hardship waiver form and may not have to pay. All patients will be treated and transported regardless of the ability to pay. If I have an outstanding balance on my insurance, will I be refused ambulance service? All patients will be treated and transported, regardless of their ability to pay. This program will not change the ambulance service provided to anyone in the City of Charlottesville, regardless of insurance coverage or any other factor. The City of Charlottesville will not deny service to those with delinquent accounts. Billing does not occur until after service has taken place. Emergency responders who respond to a call will have no knowledge of who has paid and who has not paid. IV. Insurance Information Will my health insurance premiums increase because of this billing? Unfortunately, health insurance premiums continue to rise regardless of whether a community decides to bill for EMS transports. Factors including the rise in prescription drug prices, the rising costs of hospitalization, an aging population, and litigation have resulted in escalating healthcare costs. Despite the steep increase in healthcare costs, ambulance transport costs represent less than 1% of health care expenditures. Many other local governments in Virginia have implemented similar EMS cost recovery programs, and they have reported no evidence that EMS billing increases health insurance premiums. V. Effects on the Volunteers How does this new program help the volunteers at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS)? The volunteers of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad have faithfully served the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County for almost 60 years. The City is committed to utilizing a significant amount of this revenue source to provide operational funding to CARS. This funding stream will allow our dedicated volunteers to continue to focus on providing top-notch emergency medical care to our community. EMS cost recovery program funds will also help offset the rising costs associated with the provision of EMS services in the City. Will the rescue squad still need our donations? Yes. The cost of providing EMS services continues to rise and CARS will still need the public’s support. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation of funds Presenter: Mary Joy Scala, Preservation & Design Planner, Department of Neighborhood development Services (NDS) Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, Director, NDS Title: Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2017-2018 Certified Local Government Grant Funding for Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic Survey - $24,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville through the Department of Neighborhood Development Services has been awarded $24,000 from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ 2017-2018 Certified Local Government Subgrant Program to have completed an historic survey of the Rose Hill neighborhood. In addition to the grant of $12,000 from DHR, there is a local match requirement, of $12,000, which will be met through the usage of existing Capital Improvement Program funding for new historic surveys. Discussion: This funding will provide a comprehensive, reconnaissance-level survey of approximately 180 properties, which have never been previously surveyed. It will also provide a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) based on the survey results, to determine if part or all of the neighborhood would qualify for future listing as a National Register historic district. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Appropriation of this item aligns with Council’s Vision Statement by supporting Charlottesville Arts and Culture: Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources. This appropriation also supports Goal 3 of the Strategic Plan: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment, including: 3.5. Protect historic and cultural resources; and 3.1. Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation; and Goal 4: A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy, including: 4.4. Promote tourism through effective marketing. Community Engagement: At the request of the Rose Hill Neighborhood Association (RHNA), staff met with the RHNA on March 28, 2017 to explain the process of historic survey and possible local, State and National historic designations. A letter of support from the RHNA is attached. Budgetary Impact: No new City funding will need to be appropriated. The local match of $12,000 is currently available in Neighborhood Development Services capital projects fund 426 for New Historic Surveys P-00484. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: An alternative is to deny the requested appropriation, which would be contrary to Comprehensive Plan Historic Preservation Goal 4 Resource Inventory: Systematically inventory and evaluate all historic resources in the City, and develop context narratives that provide the historical and architectural basis for evaluating their significance and integrity. Attachments: May 26, 2017 - Letter of support from Rose Hill Neighborhood Association August 4, 2017 – Letter of agreement from Virginia Department of Historic Resources APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) 2017-2018 Certified Local Government (CLG) grant funding for Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic Survey $24,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, has received from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), funding to support a historic survey for Rose Hill Neighborhood, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $12,000 for the fiscal year 2017-2018 received from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue $12,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900289 G/L: 430120 (State/Fed Pass Thru) $12,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900289 G/L: 498010 (Transfer from CIP) Expenditure $24,000 Fund: 209 IO: 1900289 G/L: 530670 (Other contractual services) Transfer $12,000 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00484 G/L: 561209(Transfer to grants) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $12,000 for the fiscal year 21-7-2018 from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR). May 26, 2017 Mary Jo Scala, AICP Preservation and Design Planner City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Dear Mary Jo, I am writing on behalf of the Rose Hill Neighborhood Association in support of an historical survey of the Rose Hill neighborhood area of the City of Charlottesville. At the last neighborhood association meeting, May 23, 2017, members of the Association affirmed to have the survey conducted. As we understand from your email of May 22, 2017, the survey area The Burley School, not cross east of the tracks, not cross Preston Avenue, and not include newer commercial areas of Preston Avenue. These are the suggested boundaries which will be finalized after the architectural historisn completes the survey work. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need anything else. Thank you, Nancy Carpenter, President Flo Taylor, Vice President Christy Reibling, Treasurer Liz Crotty, Secretary COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Department of Historic Resources Moll y Joseph Ward 2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Julie V. Langan Secretary qf Nalural Resources Director Tel : (804) 367-2323 Fax: (804) 367-2391 www.dhr.virginia.gov July 27, 2017 Mary Joy Scala Preservation and Design Planner P.O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: 2017-2018 CLG Grant Agreement Dear Ms. Scala: I am pleased to enclose an agreement for your 2017-2018 CLG Grant for $12,000 for a comprehensive, reconnaissance-level survey of approximately 180 buildings located in the Rose Hill Neighborhood in central Charlottesville. Congratulations and we look forward to working with you on this project. Please sign this agreement and return it to Aubrey Von Lindern, Northern Regional Preservation Office, Department of Historic Resources, P.O. Box 519 in the next ten days. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact Aubrey at (540) 868-7029. Sincerely, LJ--~'d~ ulie V. Langan Director Virginia Department of Historic Resources Administrative Services Eastern Reg ion Ofllce Western Region Ofllce Northern Region Office 10 Courthollse Ave. 2801 Kensington Avenue 962 Kime Lane 5357 Main Street Petersburg. VA 23803 R ichmond, VA 2322 1 Salem. VA 24153 PO Box 519 Tel: (804) 862-6408 Tel: (804) 367-2323 Tel: (540) 387-5443 Stephens City, VA 22655 Fax: (804) 862 -6196 Fax: (804) 367-2391 Fax: (540) 387-5446 Tel: (540) 868-7029 Fax : (5 40) 868-7033 Certified Local Government Grant Agreement 2017-2018 This agreement entered into this 27th day of July, 2017, by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Historic Resources (DHR), and the City of Charlottesville, the Certified Local Government (CLG), WITNESS that DHR and the CLG, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and agreements herein contained, agree that the grant awarded by DHR to the CLG shall be described below: Project Title: Rose Hill Neighborhood Historic Survey Grant Amount: $12,000 Matching Share: $12,000 Total Project Costs: $ 24,000 Grant Period: July 15,2017,* through June 30, 2018. *Actual start date is the date of full execution of agreement. This grant agreement incorporates the following documents: (1) This signed form; (2) DHR Request for Applications - 2017-2018 CLG Subgrant Program, dated March 06, 2017 (3) Grant Application from the City of Charlottesville, dated May 26,2017; (4) Any negotiated modifications thereto, all of which are referenced below: a. Any publications produced with grant funds must include the language concerning NPS financial assistance and nondiscrimination as shown below: This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs . If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Page 2, Charlottesville July 27, 2017 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Grant Agreement to be duly executed, intending to be bound thereby. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMONWEAL TH OF VIRGINIA DEPT. OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Signature:~ Signat Name: Ma~ Name: Title: Preservation and Design Planner Title: Director Date: _ _"=----J-7_-----'U>=-"-I-"l-_ _ __ Date: 7-.4./ -/ Z This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Maggie Cullinan, Coordinator Victim and Witness Assistance Program Staff Contacts: Maggie Cullinan, Coordinator Victim and Witness Assistance Program Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst Title: Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant $250,902 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, has received the Victim Witness Program Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $164,176 in Federal Funds and $54,726 in State General Funds, and $32,000 supplement from the Commonwealth Attorney’s operating budget for a total award of $250,902. Discussion: The victim’s rights movement began in the 1970s as a result of victims being re-victimized by the criminal justice process. Victims had difficulty navigating the complexities of the criminal justice system and no voice or recourse when their cases were continued or pled out without their knowledge or consent. Prosecutors did not have the time or skills to respond to victims who were traumatized, but knew that in order to proceed with their case, many victims would need more services than the prosecutor’s office could provide. In response to this need, the federal Victims of Crime Act was passed in 1984 and funds became available through the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice to respond to the needs of victims. The Charlottesville Victim/Witness Assistance Program was established in 1989 and has been meeting the needs of Charlottesville crime victims ever since. The Program is one of more than 60 such programs in the state that provides crisis intervention and advocacy, information and support during and after criminal justice proceedings, access to compensation and restitution, referrals to local community agencies and ensures victims are afforded their rights as outlined in Virginia’s Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act. The Program also provides training on victim issues to law enforcement and allied agencies. It regularly serves more than 800 victims and 20 witnesses each year. 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, a Community of Mutual Respect and a Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the total economic loss to crime victims was $1.19 billion for violent offenses and $16.2 billion for property crime in 2008. Statistics vary on the amount of intangible losses victims accumulate, such as the effects of the crime on their sense of security, mental health and relationships. The Charlottesville Victim Witness Assistance Program contributes to the health of the community by connecting crime victims with medical and mental health providers through the Criminal Injury Compensation Fund. The Program helps create a Community of Mutual Respect by responding to the needs of crime victims and helps achieve a Smart, Citizen-Focused Government by ensuring their rights are recognized throughout the local criminal justice system, including police, prosecution, judges and probation. Community Engagement: The Victim Witness Assistance Program is engaged daily with victims of crime who access services through referrals from police, court services, social services and other allied agencies. Program staff contacts crime victims within 48 hours of their reported victimization. Program staff serves on several coordinating councils, such as the Multi-Disciplinary Team on Child Abuse, the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, the Sexual Assault Response Team, the Monticello Area Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Evidence Based Decision Making Policy Team. The program regularly provides outreach in the forms of government services day, training and speaking engagements at UVA, PVCC and other allied agencies as requested. Budgetary Impact: The Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant is renewed annually; the amount of this year’s award is $218,902. The salary supplement of $32,000 was budgeted in the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s budget as part of the FY 2018 Adopted Budget and will be transferred into the grants fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives: If grant funds are not appropriated, Charlottesville crime victims will have no access to compensation, advocacy or services afforded to them under Virginia’s Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act. Attachments: Appropriation Memorandum APPROPRIATION Charlottesville Victim Witness Assistance Program Grant $250,902 WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, has received an increase in the Victim Witness Program Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $250,902; and WHEREAS, the City is providing a supplement in the amount of $32,000, the source of which is the Commonwealth Attorney’s operating budget; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $218,902 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $ 54,726 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 430110 $164,176 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 430120 $ 32,000 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures $222,214 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 519999 $ 7,379 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 530100 $ 21,309 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 1414001000 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer $ 32,000 Fund: 105 Cost Center: 1401001000 G/L Account: 561209 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $218,902 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Requested: Resolution Presenter: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Staff Contacts: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Title: Pollocks Branch Bridge – Design and Installation - $250,000 Background: The City currently has an opportunity to repurpose a historic bridge that is being replaced in Albemarle County by installing it as a pedestrian bridge across Pollocks Branch between the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) South 1st Street site and the western end of Rockland Avenue. In conjunction with the bridge, the City would install landscaping at the western end/bottom of Rockland Avenue to increase aesthetic values and provide an improved vegetative buffer for Pollocks Branch. This opportunity was a high priority for the neighbors and stakeholders who were engaged during the development of the Pollocks Branch Walkable Watershed Concept Plan. This project will provide another important link in the trails system in the City. This bridge will create a much needed centrally located east-west bicycle and pedestrian link in the six block long (north-south) area separated by Pollocks Branch It will also provide access to the developing Pollocks Branch greenway for residents on the east side of the creek. This greenway is planned to connect the downtown area with Moores Creek and the Rivanna Trails Foundation system and is envisioned in the City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as well as the Strategic Investment Area Plans. It is anticipated that:  Surveying, engineering and foundation design services will be contracted out via a City contract  Bridge prep work and moving will be contracted out via coordination with VDOT contractors and a City contract. VDOT will be responsible for removing the bridge from its current location and moving it to a site for the City’s prep work. The City will be responsible for the prep work and moving the bridge to its proposed location.  Landscape design will be completed by City staff/partners/volunteers, with community input.  Landscaping, bollards, guardrails, lighting and signage will be explored as project elements.  Relocation of utility(ies) will be explored (if required) in conjunction with location of the bridge.  Dominion Energy will be contacted to explore lighting installation at each end of the bridge  Private funding sources and grants to offset City funds will be explored. Discussion: This project was not included in the FY17/18 CIP because Albemarle County/VDOT only recently contacted the City to see if there was interest in repurposing this bridge that is currently being replaced in the County. City staff quickly met to discuss possible uses, locations and other options. There will be no cost to the City for the bridge itself. Parks and Recreation will be responsible for ongoing maintenance, after installation, as part of the trails system; and this bridge will be added to the City’s bridge inventory to receive biennial inspections. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This project supports City Council’s visions of A Green City, America’s Healthiest City, A Connected Community, and Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. It contributes to the following Goals and Objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan FY2018-2020: Goal 3: A Beautiful and Sustainable Natural and Built Environment 3.1: Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation 3.2: Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure 3.3: Provide a variety of transportation and mobility options 3.4: Be responsible stewards of natural resources 3.5: Protect historic and cultural resources Goal 5: A Well-managed and Responsive Organization 5.4: Foster effective community engagement. Community Engagement: Public outreach, community engagement and support for this project:  CRHA South 1st Street: Overwhelming support was received from Ms. Audrey Oliver, a resident and CRHA Board Commissioner. She continues to share information regarding the project with residents in the neighborhood, and has offered to convene a small group of stakeholders from South 1st Street to provide input on the project.  900 block of Rockland Avenue: Ann Marie Hohenberger, the Ridge Street Neighborhood Association president, and Brenda Kelley, the City’s Redevelopment Manager spent an early evening knocking on doors and having conversations with many of the residents in the 900 block of Rockland Avenue. A follow-up letter was sent to all residents on the block. One phone call was received asking for more information on the project, with no objections. One email was received from a resident we spoken with during the door-knocking to ask how soon the project would be completed. There was no response received to a request for volunteers to participate in the design of the street-end landscaping. The project has the support of the Ridge Street Neighborhood Association.  This project was presented to and discussed with the CRHA Board of Commissioners at their regular Board meeting on July 24, 2017. The Board fully supported this project. It was suggested that installation of an emergency phone be explored at the new bridge crossing.  If approved, a small group of community stakeholders will be convened to provide input into the installation process and landscape design.  If approved, a technical task force will be involved in the design and installation process to include, but not limited to: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager; Chris Gensic, Parks and Recreation; Dan Frisbee, Environmental Sustainability; Amber Ellis, James River Association (Walkable Watershed grant partner); Alisa Hefner, SKEO (Walkable Watershed grant partner); Dan Sweet, Public Utilities/Stormwater Utility; Marty Silman, City Engineer; Brennan Duncan, Traffic; Steve Mays, Public Works; Mike Ronayne, Urban Forester; John Mann, Parks Landscape Manager; Amanda Poncy, Bike/Ped; and Carrie Rainey, SIA Planner/Landscape Architect. Budgetary Impact: No additional funds will need to be appropriated. Funding for the project will be transferred from previously appropriated funding in the Capital Improvement Program SIA account to the SIA Pollocks Branch Bridge project account. Staff will continue to explore available grants and donations for this project to offset City funds. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this Resolution. Alternatives: If this project is not funded, the project will not move forward and the bridge will not be installed. Attachments: Picture of the existing Secretary Sand Road bridge in Albemarle County proposed to be relocated and repurposed. Map of proposed bridge location. Appropriation Resolution Existing Secretary Sand Road bridge in Albemarle County proposed to be relocated and repurposed. Map of Proposed Bridge Location RESOLUTION Pollocks Branch Bridge – Design and Installation - $250,000 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that previously appropriated SIA Implementation funding of up to $250,000 is authorized to be used to fund the Pollocks Branch Bridge – Design and Installation project. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Actions Required: Yes (One reading Resolution) Staff Presenter: Craig Brown, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney Title: Authorization to Advertise for Proposals to Lease City-Owned Parking Spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage Background: The owner / developer of the Dewberry Hotel on the Downtown Mall has expressed an interest in leasing City-owned parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage (“WSPG”) for use by the hotel’s visitors and guests, once it is built and opened. In 2007 the original developer of the hotel leased 70 parking spaces in the Garage from Charlottesville Parking Center, Inc. for an initial term of 20 years, with the right to renew the lease for two additional terms of 20 years each. That lease ended when the original hotel owner was unable to complete the project. Virginia law provides that property owned by cities and towns can be leased for a maximum term of 40 years, and that before granting a lease in excess of five years, “the city or town shall, after due advertisement, publicly receive bids therefore.” Since the hotel developer has expressed an interest in leasing WSPG parking spaces for more than five years, the purpose of this agenda item is to request City Council’s authorization to advertise for bids to lease 75 spaces in the WSPG for a term of 40 years. Discussion: The advertisement must be published once a week for two successive weeks in the newspaper, and it must contain a description of the proposed ordinance that will approve the lease of the parking spaces. The advertisement will invite written bids for the lease, to be submitted by a specified time and then announced at a City Council meeting. Virginia Code §15.2-2102 states that “the council shall accept the highest bid from a responsible bidder and shall adopt the ordinance as advertised . . . however, the council, by a recorded vote of a majority of the members elected to the council, may reject a higher bid and accept a lower bid from a responsible bidder, if, in its opinion, some reason affecting the interest of the city or town makes it advisable to do so”. This public advertisement and bid process has previously been used to lease property for a 40 year term to the Boys and Girls Club at the Buford Middle School site, and to the YMCA at McIntire Park. Community Engagement: There has been no formal community engagement to date, but Virginia Code §15.2-1800 requires that a public hearing be held prior to the lease of real property. That public hearing has been tentatively set for Monday, October 2, 2017, at the same Council meeting where the bids will be publicly announced. Budget Impact: The impact on the City budget will be determined by the amount bid for the parking spaces, if accepted by the City. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution, authorizing staff to solicit bids for the lease of the 75 parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage. Alternatives: City Council can decline to start the process for soliciting bids for the 75 WSPG parking spaces. Attachments: Proposed Resolution A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SOLICITATIONOF BIDS FOR THE LEASE OF 75 CITY-OWNED PARKING SPACES IN THE WATER STREET PARKING GARAGE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that City staff is hereby directed to have published in the newspaper an advertisement soliciting bids for the lease of 75 City-owned parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage for a term of 40 years, with said advertisement to be in accordance with the requirements of Virginia Code §15.2- 2101. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Second Reading: Ordinance Presenter: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Staff Contacts: Susan Elliott, Climate Protection Program Coordinator Kristel Riddervold, Environmental Sustainability Manager Missy Creasy, Assistant Director, NDS Title: Zoning Text Amendment for Solar Energy Systems Procedural Background: On May 1, 2017, City Council initiated a zoning text amendment to expressly allow solar energy systems. The City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations. A joint public hearing was conducted by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017. Planning Commission Recommendation—On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve the attached amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations. As a condition of their approval, the Planning Commission has also recommended that, prior to a Second Reading of the proposed Ordinance, City Council should request the BAR and Entrance Corridor Review Board to weigh in as to whether any additional zoning text amendments might be necessary in order to ensure that those design review bodies will have authority, under their respective ordinance provisions, to review the compatibility of each different type of solar energy system that might have a significant impact on a major design control district, a conservation district or an entrance corridor. Environmental Sustainability staff worked cooperatively with our SolSmart Advisor (background on SolSmart provided later in this Memo), NDS, and the City Attorney‟s office to draft the proposed ordinance attached to this Memo. Considerations included: - current conditions accepted for installations - existing zoning code allowances for related items, such as appurtenances and accessory structures - best practices specific to solar PV (rather than other types of mechanical equipment) - experienced-based feedback from the local solar installation industry - sample model codes from SolSmart and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - comments from the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 2017 Executive Summary of Proposed Text Amendments The proposed zoning text amendment is intended to establish the underlying zoning code for all zoning districts and to maintain any additional review or restrictions as applicable by overlay zoning or design control districts. A summary of the proposed text adjustments are explained in this report. Additional attachments include a table summarizing the proposed code language, birds-eye-view diagrams for “low- density residential districts” and “all other zoning districts”, images of example solar energy system installations and configurations, and further information regarding topics such as the reflectivity of solar PV panels. Why is a Zoning Text Amendment for Solar Energy Systems Needed? There is an increasing demand for solar energy systems within Charlottesville, Virginia, and the country. The City‟s current zoning code does not reference solar energy system installations directly. Therefore, City Environmental Sustainability Division staff recommends certain revisions and the addition of a new section to the zoning code to clarify allowable locations and heights for solar energy systems. The recommendations are based on national best practices, a review of the existing zoning code for structures and uses of similar sizes and forms, and input from the local solar industry. This proposal aims to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed by-right as accessory in all zoning districts and provide some clear guidance on how and where these systems are installed in the city. This proposal maintains that solar energy systems will remain subject to any additional design controls as applicable (e.g. entrance corridor properties and protected historic properties will continue to require review from the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review). This work supports the Streets That Work Code Audit, responds to recommendations from the 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance assessment, and is consistent with the cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment. While City staff has received limited community concerns regarding our solar PV practices and processes, SGA described the lack of reference in the code text as a barrier due to the potential ambiguity it presents. Furthermore, the City is participating in the national SolSmart program (SolSmart). The City has been awarded Bronze level designation as a „solar-friendly community‟ and is pursuing Silver level, which requires that zoning code clearly allows solar energy systems as an accessory use by- right in all major zoning districts. SGA and SolSmart both recommend that solar PV be clarified in the zoning code. Background on the SolSmart Program: In March 2016, the City of Charlottesville earned SolSmart Early Adopter status and began pursuing „solar-friendly community‟ designation. By participating in the SolSmart program, Charlottesville‟s primary aims are to: 1) Receive national recognition for the good work that Charlottesville does as a Green Leader 2) Move forward on the solar photovoltaic (PV) Smart Growth America recommendations and the Code Audit portion of “Streets That Work” 3) Improve our processes and policies where it makes sense SolSmart is funded by the US Department of Energy and is supported by – amongst other organizations – The Solar Foundation, the National League of Cities and the International City/County Management Association. SolSmart assists localities to adopt local government best practices and policies that contribute to reducing the soft costs of solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations. Solar PV systems use solar panels to generate electricity. While the hardware costs (e.g. equipment costs) for solar PV have reduced significantly over the past 5 years, nationwide studies have shown that soft costs (e.g. permitting, inspections, and financing costs) can amount to 60% of a solar PV system‟s installation costs. As a result of a successful joint application from the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, the localities have been awarded free technical assistance in the form of an on-site SolSmart Advisor for a period of up to 6 months through July to assist both the City and the County in achieving their SolSmart designation goals. One of the primary focuses of the SolSmart Advisor‟s work with the City has been to assist staff in reviewing local zoning code and drafting proposed updates related to solar energy systems. Discussion: The full text of the proposed ordinance amendments is attached as well some reference diagrams and example images. The specific recommended changes to the ordinance are: Sec. 34-1101. Appurtenances Proposed edits to this section aim to improve clarity on allowable placement of solar energy systems in relationship to building height maximums, minimum required yards, and setbacks from lot lines. Also proposed is eliminating the use of the unclear term appurtenance. Sec. 34-1108: Standards for solar energy systems This is a new section being proposed to provide clear standards for solar energy systems, which are currently not directly addressed in the code. This section proposes height maximums, location restrictions, safety requirements, and references to other applicable codes – such as the state building and fire code – for solar energy systems. Also includes that solar energy systems may be attached and incorporated into building façades such as roof tiles, shutters, canopies (e.g. „building integrated solar‟) Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. The proposed changes aim to clarify that solar energy systems are allowed on nonconforming buildings or structures. Sec. 34-1147. Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. The proposed changes provide clarity on the consideration of solar energy systems for expansion of nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 34-1200. Zoning—Definitions The definition of Accessory building, structure, or use currently lists common examples of accessory buildings and structures, but does not clarify examples of accessory uses. The proposed changes include adding examples equipment or fixtures as accessory uses, which include heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, and solar energy systems. Furthermore, a definition of solar energy systems is added to clarify the use of the term throughout the Zoning Ordinance. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This action aligns with: - City Council Vision: A Green City - Strategic Plan Goals 2, 3, and 4 - Comprehensive Plan o Chapter 4, Goal 5 o Chapter 4, Goal 6 (Strategies 1, 2, and 4) o Chapter 5, Goal 8, Strategy 7 o Community Value 3 and Value 5 Additionally, it is consistent with the City‟s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those recently reiterated in the June 19, 2017 Climate Resolution, the previously referenced cooperative MOU for Collaboration between the City and County Regarding the Environment, Streets That Work Code Audit, and 2015 Smart Growth America (SGA) Technical Assistance recommendations. Community Engagement: Growing demand and interest in local solar PV installations has been observed over the past 3 years as demonstrated through the popular Solarize Charlottesville campaigns led by the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) and subsequent increased market activity and requests for solar PV electrical permits. Staff has received comments observing that allowance of solar energy systems is not clear in the zoning ordinance. Local solar PV industry practitioners who have aligned themselves as members of the recently- launched Charlottesville Renewable Energy Alliance (CvilleREA) reviewed the originally proposed zoning text amendment and supported the draft without concern. A couple of CvilleREA members subsequently noted that the 15 foot height maximum could be restrictive for parking lot solar canopies. Staff and these members are willing to work together on a future proposal to address this specific application for solar energy systems. Staff also incorporated comments from the public and the Planning Commissioners provided at the May 9, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Budgetary Impact: No additional funding is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council support the recommended zoning text amendments for solar energy systems and request that Council‟s 2nd reading be postponed until after Council hears from the BAR and the ECRB. Alternatives: Council can choose to maintain the current zoning code and not support the recommended text amendments. Attachments:  Ordinance with the proposed zoning text amendments  Supplemental reference materials including: o Summary Table – proposed zoning text o Diagrams – showing proposed allowable locations for solar energy systems in low density residential zoning districts and in all other zoning districts o Pictures of Example Solar Energy Systems Attachment to Council Memo regarding Solar Energy Systems ZTA – Second Reading Impacts of proposed amendments on historic and design review Background: On May 1, 2017, City Council initiated a zoning text amendment to expressly allow solar energy systems. The City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations. A joint public hearing was conducted by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017. On June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations. As a condition of their approval, the Planning Commission has also recommended that, prior to a Second Reading of the proposed Ordinance, City Council should request the BAR and Entrance Corridor Review Board to weigh in as to whether any additional zoning text amendments might be necessary in order to ensure that those design review bodies will have authority, under their respective ordinance provisions, to review the compatibility of each different type of solar energy system that might have a significant impact on a major design control district, a conservation district or an entrance corridor. Discussion: The Entrance Corridor Review Board discussed SES at their August 8, 2017 meeting and recommended the following to City Council: that they make no revisions to the ordinance concerning the entrance corridor review process because it does not appear to be affected by the new solar ordinance, but that they give good credence to the recommendations of the BAR and they draft amendments in accordance with their concerns. The Board of Architectural Review discussed SES at their July 18, 2017 meeting and recommended the following: • In general, the BAR wants to encourage solar energy systems but still wants to review them as they have been doing. • In historic conservation districts, ordinance changes are needed in order to continue to review solar panels that are visible additions to a building. They are clearly additions to the historic fabric. • In ADC districts it is unclear whether the BAR can continue to review freestanding solar structures that are too small to require a building permit. Ordinance changes may be necessary for the BAR to continue to be able to review them. • The BAR wanted to alert the Planning Commission that, everywhere, not only in historic districts, a 15- ft solar structure (for instance on a parking garage) could cover the entire rooftop of a building which would change the massing. They did not know if that would be an issue. • Under Sec 34-1101 a (2) it was suggested that “in aggregate” be added to the text so it would not be interpreted that each type of item could, by itself, cover 25% of the roof. Recommendations: The Preservation and Design Planner recommends the following: 1. No zoning amendments are needed to allow continued design review of solar installations in entrance corridor districts. However, when the Entrance Corridor Guidelines are updated, they should be amended to include specific guidelines that address solar installations. 2. The Board of Architectural Review wants to encourage solar energy systems but still wants to review them. Within historic conservation districts, because rooftop solar panel installations cannot be considered “additions,” the historic conservation district ordinance should be amended to specifically allow review when solar panels are proposed on a roof visible from the frontage street. 3. The current ordinance language regarding what requires review in ADC districts is fairly inclusive. The only type of solar installation that may not be addressed is a solar panel placed on the ground without any structure. It is recommended that the ADC ordinance be amended to include review of these installations. 4. Under Sec 34-1101 a (2) “in aggregate” should be added to the text so it would not be interpreted that each type of item could, by itself, cover 25% of the roof. ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 34 (ZONING), SECTIONS 34-1101, 34-1146, 34-1147, and 34-1200, AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 34-1108, TO EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2286(A)(7), the Charlottesville City Council previously initiated amendments of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville, Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended (“Zoning Ordinance”), to expressly allow permit solar energy systems, and City Council referred the proposed amendments to the Charlottesville Planning Commission for review and recommendations, in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2-2285; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted jointly by City Council and the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017 following public notice as required by law; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that City Council should approve certain proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, to expressly authorize solar energy systems subject to appropriate regulations, finding that such amendments are required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, this City Council concurs with the Planning Commission that the proposed zoning text amendments are required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, and further, Council finds that the proposed amendments have been designed to give reasonable consideration to the purposes set forth within Virginia Code §15.2- 2283 and have been drawn with reasonable consideration given to the matters set forth within Virginia Code §15.2-2284; NOW, THEREFORE, this City Council does hereby amend and re-enact the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, as follows: Strikeout text = existing provisions proposed to be deleted Blue font text = new provisions proposed to be added 1. Chapter 34, Article X (Definitions), Section 34-1200 is amended and re-enacted, as follows: Sec. 34-1200: Zoning--Definitions Accessory building, structure or use means a building, structure or use located upon the same lot as the principal use, building, or structure, the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure. Garages, carports and storage sheds are common residential accessory buildings and structures. Heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, utility service lines and meters, solar energy systems, and related equipment, are equipment or fixtures used accessory to a building or structure located on the same lot. Page 1 of 5 means equipment used primarily for the collection and use of solar Solar Energy System energy for water heating, space heating or cooling, or other application requiring an energy source. 2. Chapter 34, Article IX (General Regulations) is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 34-1101. – Exclusions from building height and minimum yard requirements Appurtenances. (a) None of the following An appurtenance to a building or structure shall not be counted in measuring the height of a building or structure: (1) rooftop solar energy systems, subject to the provisions of 34-1108; (b) (2) rooftop heating, electrical, and mechanical equipment, or elevator returns, which are necessary for or in connection with the proper operation of a building in accordance with USBC requirements, provided that no such equipment or elevator return, as installed No rooftop appurtenance shall: (i) itself measure more than eighteen (18) feet in height above the building, or (ii) cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the roof area of a building ; (3) Telecommunications equipment, subject to the provisions of 34-1070 et seq.; (4) Chimneys constructed or attached to the side of a building, which extend above the level of the roof deck of a building to a height required by the USBC or VSFPC; (c) (5) Other equipment or structures constructed or installed above the roof deck of a building, so long as they: (i) comply with the height and area requirements set forth in paragraph (2) above, and (ii) contain no Within a rooftop appurtenance, no enclosed space that is shall be designed for or that can be used as any type of habitable residential space. The provisions of this paragraph shall not preclude open-air space on a building rooftop from being used accessory to the primary use of the building. (b)(d)Each of the following appurtenances may encroach into minimum required yards as specified: (1)Window sills, roof overhangs, belt courses, cornices and ornamental features may encroach into a required yard by no more than twelve (12) inches. (2)Open lattice-enclosed fire escapes, fireproof outside stairways, and the ordinary projections of chimneys and flues may encroach into a required rear yard by no more than five (5) feet. (3)Chimneys or flues being added to an existing building may encroach into a required side yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to the side lot line. Page 2 of 5 (4)Elevator shafts, and heating, electrical and mechanical equipment, which are if screened in accordance with the requirements of Section 34-872, may encroach into a required side or rear yard. (5)Handicapped ramps meeting ADA standards may encroach into a required yard. (6) Solar energy systems may encroach into required front, side and rear yards, subject to the provisions of sec. 34-1108 (limitations on placement in front of buildings). No solar energy system shall be placed closer than five (5) feet to any lot line. (6)Except as otherwise provided above: (7) a. Uncovered and unenclosed structures (such as decks, porches, stoops, etc.) attached to a building, and appurtenances which have a maximum floor height of three (3) feet above the finished grade, may encroach into any required yard, but not closer than five (5) feet to any lot line and no more than ten (10) feet into a required front yard; however, no such structure or improvement appurtenance, shall occupy more than thirty (30) percent of a rear yard. (8) b. Any appurtenance to a For any single- or two-family dwelling, an unenclosed structure attached to the façade of the dwelling, and having a height greater than three (3) feet above finished grade, may encroach into a required front yard by up to ten (10) feet, but no closer than five (5) feet to a front lot line.; however, Any such structure such appurtenance shall comply be in compliance with the applicable side yard setback (s). (c) c. No enclosed structure that is attached to any building appurtenance, regardless of height (including but not limited to a screened-in porch), shall encroach into any required yard. Sec. 34-1108. Standards for solar energy systems The following requirements apply to solar energy systems: (1) Solar energy systems shall be installed in compliance with applicable provisions of the USBC and the VSFPC. (2) A solar energy system may be installed on the roof of any building or structure, whether principal or accessory. (i). The height of a solar energy system installed on the roof of a single- or two-family dwelling, or on the roof of an accessory building or structure on the same lot as such dwelling, may extend up to five (5) feet above the highest point of the roof of the building or structure on which it is installed. Page 3 of 5 (ii). Except as limited by subparagraph (i), above, a rooftop solar energy system may extend up to fifteen (15) feet above the highest point of the roof of the building or structure on which it is installed. (3) A solar energy system may be attached and incorporated as part of any building façade (for example: roof tiles, window shutters, canopies, etc.). (4) Placement in front of buildings: (i) Within required front yards--Within a required front yard, a solar energy system may be incorporated as part of any structure allowed by Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34- 1101(b)(8). Otherwise, no solar energy system shall be located within a required front yard. (ii) Within other areas forward of the front building façade—Within a low-density residential zoning district, except as provided in subparagraph (i), above, no solar energy system may be located forward of an imaginary line extending along the exterior façade of a residential building, parallel to the front lot line and extending between the side lot lines. In all other zoning districts, a solar energy system may be located in an area between the front building façade and the required front yard. (5) Except as provided in paragraph (2)(i), above, a solar energy system, together with its support, shall not itself exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet unless otherwise required by the USBC or VSFPC for a specific use. Sec. 34-1146. Nonconforming structures, permitted changes. (a) A nonconforming structure may be changed, altered, repaired, restored, replaced, relocated or expanded only in accordance with the provisions of this section and of sec. 34-1147, and subject to all approvals required by law…… ….(e) A solar energy system may be placed on or attached to on a nonconforming building or structure. Page 4 of 5 Sec. 34-1147. - Expansion of nonconforming uses or structures. (a) Nonconforming uses or structures may expand only in accordance with the provisions of this section. Whenever a percentage limitation is placed on expansion, that limitation shall be the total expansion allowed, in increments of any size that add up to the total, or all at once. All expansion shall occur on the lot occupied by the nonconforming use or structure, inclusive of any permitted consolidations or re -subdivisions. (b) Nonconforming uses, other than structures, may be expanded on an area of a lot not originally devoted to the nonconforming use, provided such expansion meets all current requirements of this chapter applicable only to the expansion. The placement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming use. (c) Nonconforming structures. (1) Nonconforming single-family dwelling. The structure may be expanded as provided within this subsection. New or expanded residential accessory structures (such as storage sheds, garages, swimming pools, etc.) may be permitted. Expansion of the dwelling, and new or expanded accessory structures, shall meet all zoning ordinance requirements, including height, yard and setbacks, for the zoning district in which located; except that extension of an existing front porch that encroaches into a front yard required by this ordinance shall be permitted to the side yard(s), so long as such extension will not result in an increase in the front yard encroachment. A single-family detached dwelling that is nonconforming because it encroaches into any required yard(s) may be expanded as long as the expansion will not result in an increase in the yard encroachment(s). However, expansions in height to existing nonconforming s ingle- family dwellings, which do not meet current setback requirements, shall be permitted only if: (i) the dwelling is only being increased in height, and (ii) the footprint of the dwelling will remain unchanged by the proposed expansion in height. Such expansion will not required to meet more restrictive setbacks enacted since the date the dwelling became nonconforming; however, all other zoning regulations for the district in which the dwelling is located shall apply. (2) Nonconforming structures, other than single-family dwellings. Where the use of a nonconforming structure is permitted by right, or with a special use or provisional use permit, in the zoning district in which the structure is located, then expansion of a nonconforming structure may be ap proved provided that: (i) yard, setback, screening and buffering, and height standards applicable to the proposed expansion are met; (ii) all applicable sign regulations are met, and (iii) such expansion does not exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. For any proposed expansion exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure, all development standards applicable to the property as a whole shall be met. (3) Theplacement or installation of a solar energy system on a building or lot shall not be deemed an expansion of a nonconforming building or structure, and the area occupied by any such system shall not be included within the calculation of percentages of expansion pursuant to paragraphs (c)(2) or (e) of this section. (4) Where a nonconforming structure is utilized for or in connection with a nonconforming use, then no expansion of the nonconforming structure shall be approved unless the zoning administrator certifies that: (i) expansion of the nonconforming structure would not result in expansion of the nonconforming use, or (ii) expansion of the nonconforming structure would result in expansion of the nonconforming use, but expansion of the nonconforming use would meet the requirements of section 34-1147(b), above. (5) (4)Prior to the approval of any expansion of a nonconforming use or structure, nonconforming status shall be verified by the zoning administrator. (d) In the event of any permitted expansion of a nonconforming structure, all signs located on the property shall be brought into full compliance with current zoning ordinance requirements. (e) Permitted expansions for nonresidential, nonconforming uses that require special or provisional use permits are required to obtain special or provisional use permits only when such expansions exceed twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure. Page 5 of 5 Solar Energy Systems – Zoning Text Amendment – Summary Chart General Provisions for All Solar Energy Systems: Defined as: Uses accessory to the use of the building, Sec. 34-1200 structure or use being served; for purposes of the city’s zoning ordinance, they are not considered to be buildings or structures. Solar Energy System means equipment used primarily for the collection and use of solar energy for water heating, space heating or cooling, or other application requiring an energy source. Shall be: Installed in compliance with applicable Sec. 34-1108(1) provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) and the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code (VSFPC). Rooftop Systems: May be installed on the roof of any building Sec. 34-1108(2) or structure, whether principal or accessory Height: Single- or two-family dwellings: Sec. 34-1108(2) Example: Angled solar May extend up to five (5) feet above the installation on single- or highest point of the roof of the building or two-family dwellings with structure on which it is installed flat roofs All other uses: Examples: Parking May extend up to fifteen (15) feet above the garage solar canopies highest point of the roof of the building or and rooftop canopy on structure on which it is installed … commercial flat roof … unless otherwise required by the USBC or Sec. 34-1108(5) VSFPC for a specific use. Excluded from measuring the height of a Sec. 34-1101(a)(1) building or structure, subject to the provisions of Sec. 34-1108 Perimeter Non-residential buildings: Sec. 34-1108(1) – Setback: A minimum 6-foot-wide clear perimeter via reference to around the edges of the roof. Or, where USBC and VSFPC either axis of the buildings is 250 feet or less, there shall be a minimum 4-foot-wide clear perimeter around the edges of the roof (VSFPC 605.11.3) For reference purposes only – Not Intended for inclusion in the zoning code Solar Energy Systems – Zoning Text Amendment – Summary Chart PAGE 2 Non-Rooftop Systems (e.g. systems that are ground-mounted or incorporated into a building or structure): May be attached and incorporated as part Sec. 34-1108(3) Examples: roof tiles, of any building façade * New Addition window shutters, canopies Setbacks: Min. 5 feet from any lot line Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) * New Addition A clear, brush-free area of 10 feet shall be Sec. 34-1108(1) – required for ground-mounted photovoltaic via reference to arrays. (VSFPC 605.11.4) USBC and VSFPC Height: Together with its support, shall not itself Sec. 34-1108(5) Examples: parking exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet unless canopies, pole-mounted otherwise required by the USBC or VSFPC solar panels, outdoor for a specific use seating canopies, incorporated in decks and porches Placement in May encroach into required front, side, and Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) Yards: rear yards, subject to the provisions of * Adjusted to Sec. 34-1108 reference Sec. 34- 1108 for all yard provisions Required Front Yards: Sec. 34-1108(4) May be located within a required front yard * New Addition only when incorporated as part of an allowed structure per Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8). Note: Attached and unenclosed structures that are allowed in required front yards are defined in Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34- 1101(b)(8). No adjustments to these sections are included in this proposal. Low-Density Residential Zoning Districts: Not allowed in any front or side yard between the line of the front building façade and the front lot line, unless incorporated as part of an allowed structure as defined in Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8). All Other Zoning Districts: Allowed between the front building façade and the required front yard. For reference purposes only – Not Intended for inclusion in the zoning code Low-Density Residential Districts Solar Energy Systems Allowed Solar Energy Systems Allowed on Structures Without an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard With an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Accessory Accessory Structure Structure Rear Yard Rear Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Primary Primary Structure Structure Front Façade Line Attached Front Yard Front Yard Unenclosed (Non-Required) (Non-Required) Structure Side Side Side (Up to 10’ into Side Yard Yard Yard Req. Front Yard) Yard Required Required Front Yard Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Diagrams Show: Proposed Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) and Sec. 34-1108(4) Existing Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8) All Zoning Districts Except Low-Density Residential (Commercial, Mixed Use, etc. Does not include Low-Density Residential.) Solar Energy Systems Allowed Solar Energy Systems Allowed on Structures Without an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard With an Allowed, Unenclosed Structure in Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Accessory Accessory Structure Structure Rear Yard Rear Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Primary Primary Structure Structure Attached Front Yard Front Yard Unenclosed (Non-Required) (Non-Required) Structure SideSide Side Side (Up to 10’ into Side Yard Yard Yard Yard Req. Front Yard) Yard Required Required Front Yard Front Yard Min. 5’ to Lot Line Min. 5’ to Lot Line Diagrams Show: Proposed Sec. 34-1101(b)(6) and Sec. 34-1108(4) Existing Sec. 34-1101(b)(7) and Sec. 34-1101(b)(8) Section 34-1108(2) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems on accessory structures Mounted on garages and sheds Photo Credits: SOLAR Generation, The Solar Shed Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(i) Applies only single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 5 feet in height above highest point of the roof Tilted solar energy systems on sloped or flat roofs Photo Credits: NZ Builders, Shades of Green Landscape Architecture, Solaire Energy Systems Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(ii) Applies to all except single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height above highest point of the roof Rooftop Canopies Photo Credits: Lumos Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(2)(ii) Applies to all except single-and two-family dwellings Examples of allowable rooftop solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height above highest point of the roof Parking Garage Canopies Photo Credit: Washington & Lee University Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-integrated solar energy systems in residential districts Photo Credits: Lumos, Saxman Photography Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-integrated solar energy systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: U.S. Department of Energy, TRA Snow and Sun Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(3) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems incorporated into building facade Building-Integrated Solar Energy Systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: Lumos Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(4)(i-ii) Applies to all zoning districts, including low-density residential districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems mounted on an attached, unenclosed structure that is allowed to encroach into the required front yard Mounted on unenclosed, attached porches Photo Credits: Sunfix, Solar Connexion LLC Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(4)(i-ii) Applies to low-density residential districts Example of solar energy system that is NOT ALLOWED between building setback line and the adjacent front lot line Photo Credits: eBay Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height Ground-mounted solar energy systems in residential districts Photo Credits: Survival Renewable Energy, Sunoco Energy Systems Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height ConnecTables are installed at UVA and Two pole-mounted solar energy systems Albemarle High School are installed at Charlottesville High School Photo Credits: ConnecTable, Zep Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 Section 34-1108(5) Applies to all zoning districts Examples of allowable solar energy systems up to 15 feet in height Ground-mounted solar energy systems in non-residential districts Photo Credits: Zep Solar Prepared for Charlottesville Planning Commission – June 13, 2017 REFLECTIVITY OF PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PANELS COMPARED TO OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS Source: “Investigating Safety Impacts of Energy Technologies on Airports and Aviation.” Report commissioned by U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration and National Academy of Science Transportation Research Board and prepared in cooperation with Harris, Miller, Miller, and Hanson, Inc. https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/PB2012100306.xhtml CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCE ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCE ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM RESIDENTIAL GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM SOLAR CANOPY CHARLOTTESVILLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMERCIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR CANOPY – in a Historic District CHARLOTTESVILLE COMMERCIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR CANOPY – in a Historic District CHARLOTTESVILLE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE BUILDING ALBEMARLE COUNTY PARKING SOLAR CANOPY This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 17, 2017 Action Required: Approve or deny ordinance for zoning text and zoning map amendments Presenter: Mary Joy Scala, Preservation & Design Planner, Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) Staff Contacts: Alex Ikefuna, Director, NDS Title: Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District (1st of 2 readings) ZT16-00003 and ZM16-0000A Background: The Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association (WMNA) originally brought this request to the Planning Commission for its initiation. The proposal would add a historic conservation overlay district to eighty-five parcels currently zoned R-1(S), R-2, PUD, and IPP, located along East Market Street, Chesapeake Street, Leake Lane, 18th Street NE, Franklin Street, Steephill Street, and Riverside Avenue (ATTACHMENT 2: Map of proposed historic conservation district and ATTACHMENT 3: Zoning map amendment ZM16-0000A - Tax map parcels to be rezoned). The proposed district includes all the City properties within the boundaries of the Woolen Mills Village National Register district (ATTACHMENT 8: National and Virginia Register historic district survey and map link), plus two additional vacant lots. City Council is being asked to take action to either approve or deny the overlay district, which was recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2016 and by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) on September 20, 2016 (ATTACHMENT 4: Joint public hearing staff report – November 9, 2016 and ATTACHMENT 5: BAR staff report – September 20, 2016). In December 2016 the WMNA asked that the rezoning be deferred for six months, or until the historic conservation district ordinance and guidelines could be revised for clarity of interpretation. Those revisions were approved by Council in April 2017. However, there continued to be concerns expressed by residents and/or property owners in Woolen Mills neighborhood. Therefore, staff conducted a poll to gauge current interest of affected property owners only. The poll letter and the follow-up letter that reported the results of the poll are attached (ATTACHMENT 9: Staff’s letters to affected property owners May 19, and June 12, 2017). 1 Discussion: The rezoning consists of a zoning text amendment (ATTACHMENT 1: Zoning text amendment ZT16-00003 - actual language); and a zoning map amendment, which would add a historic conservation overlay designation to the eighty-five parcels. In addition, every building in the district would be designated either contributing or non-contributing on the map included in the guidelines (ATTACHMENT 2: Map of proposed historic conservation district). The effect of the proposed overlay district would make certain exterior changes subject to review by the BAR, in summary:  All new structures require design review by the BAR if they require a building permit and unless concealed by the principal structure;  Certain fences and walls;  An addition if: (1) located on a corner or double-frontage lot; (2) located on the front or side of a building; (3) equal to or greater than 50% total gross floor area of the building; OR (4) exceeding the height or width of existing building;  Demolition of all or part of a ―contributing‖ structure if: (1) located in whole or part to the front or side of the building; (2) located on a corner or double-frontage lot; OR (3) equal to or greater than 33% of the total gross floor area of the building.  Painting only previously unpainted brick or other masonry. The removal or replacement of windows or doors does not require BAR review, provided the size of the opening is not altered. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The intent of the Historic Conservation Overlay District is to (1) identify and preserve buildings, structures and areas; (2) to protect a neighborhood’s scale and character; and (3) to document and promote an understanding of a neighborhood’s social history. The proposed rezoning supports City Council’s ―C’ville Arts and Culture‖ vision: Our community has world-class performing, visual, and literary arts reflective of the unique character, culture, and diversity of Charlottesville. Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources…. It contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan: Be a safe, equitable, thriving, and beautiful community; and Objective 2.5: Provide natural and historic resources stewardship. Community Engagement: Community engagement has been extensive: February 2016 - Prior to requesting the historic designation, the Woolen Mills Neighborhood 2 Association (WMNA) engaged in a process to determine support among property owners in the area. They sent a mailing to all property owners in the proposed district; held a community meeting in April 2016, and mailed ballots in May 2016 (ATTACHMENT 6: WMNA rezoning request email and ballots sent to property owners). September 20, 2016 - The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) made a unanimous recommendation for approval. November 9, 2016 - The Planning Commission held a joint public hearing and made a unanimous recommendation for approval. Staff received thirty written comments from the public: 19 from affected property owners, with 13 in support, 5 opposed, and 1 question; and 11 from persons who are not owners of property within the proposed district, with 9 in support, 1 opposed, and 1 question (ATTACHMENT 7: 2016 letters from the public). December 1, 2016 – at the request of John Frazee, Chair of the WMNA, another informational session for the residents was held at Woolen Mills Chapel with staff and BAR and Planning Commission representatives present to take comments and answer questions. December 21, 2016 – Frazee requested deferral of Council’s consideration of the proposed district for six months, or until the final revisions to the historic conservation district code were adopted. May 11, 2017 - Staff received a petition with 43 signatures asking if NDS could not provide an opt- out option, that the proposed district not be passed (ATTACHMENT 10: Eric Hurt petition). May and June 2017- Staff sent two mailings to all affected property owners, the first to ask their opinion in a poll, and the second to report the poll results and the City Council public hearing date. (ATTACHMENT 9: Staff’s letters to affected property owners May 19, and June 12, 2017). Budgetary Impact: No impact. Recommendation: Staff recommends, along with the BAR and the Planning Commission, that City Council should approve the designation, based on the criteria found in Section 34-336(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, of this part of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood as the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District, including the proposed district boundary and the map of contributing/non-contributing properties as proposed. Alternatives: (1) City Council could choose to approve or deny the proposed historic conservation overlay district designation as proposed; and/or 3 (2) City Council could choose to reduce or enlarge the area to be rezoned with the overlay district (an increase in area would require historic survey of additional properties and re- notification). Attachments: 1. Zoning text amendment ZT16-00003 - actual language 2. Map of proposed historic conservation district 3. Zoning map amendment ZM16-0000A - Tax map parcels to be rezoned 4. Joint public hearing staff report – November 9, 2016 5. BAR staff report – September 20, 2016 6. WMNA rezoning request email and ballots sent to property owners 7. 2016 letters from the public 8. National and Virginia Register historic district survey and map link http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=15458 9. Staff’s letters to affected property owners May 19, and June 12, 2017 10. Eric Hurt petition 4 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 34-337 OF CHAPTER 34 (ZONING) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, TO AD A NEW ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE WOOLEN MILLS VILLAGE HISTORIC CONSERVATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, based on information and surveys provided by neighborhood residents, the City’s Board of Architectural Review (“BAR”) and staff of the City’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services (“NDS”) have recommended that a new historic conservation overlay district should be established, as shown on a map prepared by NDS, dated November 18, 2016, titled “Proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District,” (“Proposed District Map”), a copy of which is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by motion, initiated the zoning text and zoning map amendments necessary for the establishment of the proposed historic conservation district; and WHEREAS, following a joint public hearing before this Council and the Planning Commission, duly advertised in accordance with law and held on November 9, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed the information and analysis provided by the BAR and NDS staff relative to the criteria set forth within City Code Sec. 34-36(c), and voted to recommend approval of proposed historic conservation district, accepting a staff recommendation for one parcel owned by a railroad company that includes the Franklin Street railroad overpass to be removed from the originally proposed district map, and the Planning Commission then transmitted its recommendation of approval to City Council along with the Proposed District Map; and WHEREAS, (i) descriptions of the features of each property within the district have been set forth within Architectural and Site Descriptions included with the BAR and NDS staff recommendations, but no designation of any structure as an individually protected property is proposed as part of this zoning action; and (ii) the designation of individual structures within the proposed district as either “contributing” or “noncontributing” is as shown on the Proposed District Map; and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that approval of the zoning text and zoning map amendments necessary for the establishment of the proposed historic conservation district will further goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan; will serve the interests of the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice; and that the zoning amendments have been designed to give reasonable consideration to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia: 1. THAT the Charlottesville City Code (1990), as amended, Chapter 34 (Zoning), Article II (Overlay Districts), Section 34-337 (Conservation Districts) is hereby amended and re-ordained, as follows: Sec. 34-337. Conservation districts. The following areas have been determined by city council to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district, the limits of which are shown on the city’s zoning map: (1) The Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District; and (2) The Rugby Road Historic Conservation District; and (3) The Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. Page 1 of 3 Within each district designated above, City Council has determined that only certain buildings are considered “contributing structures.” Those contributing structures are identified on a map of each district included within the city’s conservation district design guidelines, copies of which are available within the department of neighborhood development services. 2. THAT this City Council concurs with the determinations shown on the Proposed District Map dated November 18, 2016, identifying structures on each parcel within the Rugby Road Historic Conservation District as being “contributing” or “non-contributing”. Such determinations are hereby adopted by City Council as its own, and those properties determined to be “contributing” shall be the properties identified on a map of the district to be included within the city’s conservation district design guidelines, as required by City Code Sec. 34-337. From time to time hereafter, Council may amend these determinations by resolution, in the same manner by which the guidelines may be approved or amended pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-348(2); and further, 3. THAT the Zoning Map referenced within City Code Sec. 34-1(1) is hereby amended and re-ordained, and shall be revised to show, within the boundaries depicted within the Proposed District Map dated November 18, 2016, an overlay zoning district to be referenced as The Rugby Road Historic Conservation District established pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-337(2), and this zoning district shall include all of the parcels identified within the boundaries shown on the Proposed District Map, which parcels are additionally described by the following Tax Map Parcel Identification Numbers: Tax Map 55A (2017): Parcels 88, 89.1, 89.2, 89.3, 90, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 115.1, 115.2, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 122.1, 123, 124, 124.1, 125, 128, 130, 130.1, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, and 150; and Tax Map 56 (2017): Parcels 40, 40A, 40.1, 40.2, 40.3, 40.4, 40.4AA, 41, 107, 108, 109, 109A, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 114.1, 114.2, 114.3, 114.4, 114.5, 115, 115.1, 116, 116.1, 116.2, 117, 118, 119, 119A, 119.1, 119.2, 119.3, 119.4, 120, 121, 122, 123, 123.1, and 124. 4. THAT the Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to revise the Zoning Map referenced within City Code Sec. 34-1(1) and update it effective as of the date this ordinance is approved, to show the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation Overlay District in accordance with the Proposed District Map dated November 18, 2016, which is set forth as follows: Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS – Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation Overlay District 1. Zoning text amendment ZT16-00003 - actual language ARTICLE II. OVERLAY DISTRICTS Sec. 34-337. Conservation districts. The following areas have been determined by city council to meet the criteria for designation as a conservation district, the limits of which are shown on the city's zoning map: (1) The Martha Jefferson Historic Conservation District; and (2) The Rugby Road Historic Conservation District. (3) The Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. Within each district designated above, city council has determined that only certain buildings are considered "contributing structures." Those contributing structures are identified on a map of each district included within the city's conservation district design guidelines, copies of which are available within the department of neighborhood development services. 5 2. Map of proposed historic conservation district to be added to guidelines 6 3. Zoning map amendment ZM16-0000A - Tax map parcels to be rezoned Tax Map 55A, Parcels 88, 89.1, 89.2, 89.3, 90, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 115.1, 115.2, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 122.1, 123, 124, 124.1, 125, 128, 130, 130.1, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150. Tax Map 56, Parcels 40, 40A, 40.1, 40.2, 40.3, 40.4, 40.4AA, 41, 107, 108, 109, 109A, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 114.1, 114.2, 114.3, 114.4, 114.5, 115, 115.1, 116, 116.1, 116.2, 117, 118, 119, 119A, 119.1, 119.2, 119.3, 119.4, 120, 121, 122, 123, 123.1, 124. 7 4. Joint public hearing staff report – November 9, 2016 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: Wednesday November 9, 2016 APPLICATION NUMBERS: ZT16-00003 and ZM16-0000A Project Planner: Mary Joy Scala Date of Staff Report: November 9, 2016 Applicant: Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association (John Frazee, Chair) Current Property Owner: Multiple Application Information Property Street Address: Multiple addresses on East Market Street, Chesapeake Street, Leake Lane, 18th Street NE, Franklin Street, Steephill Street, Riverside Avenue Tax Map/Parcel Numbers: Multiple Tax Map 28, Parcel 555 (part of RR R/W) Tax Map 55A, Parcels 88, 89.1, 89.2, 89.3, 90, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 109, 115, 115.1, 115.2, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 122.1, 123, 124, 124.1, 125, 128, 130, 130.1, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150. Tax Map 56, Parcels 40, 40A, 40.1, 40.2, 40.3, 40.4, 40.4AA, 41, 107, 108, 109, 109A, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 114.1, 114.2, 114.3, 114.4, 114.5, 115, 115.1, 116, 116.1, 116.2, 117, 118, 119, 119A, 119.1, 119.2, 119.3, 119.4, 120, 121, 122, 123, 123.1, 124. Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: Approximately 81 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Low Density Residential; Park or Preserved Open Space (Riverview Cemetery) Current Zoning Classification: R-1(S) - Residential Single Family (Small Lot); R-2 - Residential Two Family; PUD – Planned Unit Development; IPP – Individually Protected Property. Applicant’s Request The applicant, Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, is seeking a rezoning to add a Historic Conservation overlay district to all the City properties that were included within the boundaries of the Woolen Mills Village National Register district (Virginia Landmarks Register 12-17-2009 and National Register of Historic Places 4-12-2010) (Note: The National Register District also included Albemarle County properties at the end of East Market Street). In addition, the neighborhood has proposed, and staff and BAR are recommending, inclusion of two additional currently vacant properties, to insure that any new construction would be compatible with the other properties in the district. 8 Vicinity Map (omitted) Standard of Review City council may, from time to time, designate properties and areas for inclusion within a Historic Conservation Overlay District. Any such designation must follow the process for an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map, including a public hearing and notification. City council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) regarding criteria found in Section 34-336(c) as to the proposed designation. The Planning Commission must make an advisory recommendation to the City Council. Council may amend the zoning district classification of this property upon finding that the proposed amendment would serve the interests of “public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice.” To advise Council as to whether those interests would be served, the Planning Commission should inquire as follows: (1) The initial inquiry should be whether the existing zoning of the property is reasonable; (2) the Commission should then evaluate whether the proposed zoning classification is reasonable. One factor relevant to the reasonableness of a particular zoning district classification is whether that classification is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. Other relevant factors include: the existing use and character of the subject property and adjacent properties; suitability of the property for various uses; zoning classification(s) of adjacent properties; the intent and purposes of the proposed zoning district classification; trends of growth and change (including, without limitation, recent patterns of development of other circumstances which may have changed since the current zoning classification was originally enacted). Executive Summary The applicant, Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, is seeking a rezoning to add a Historic Conservation overlay district to eighty-six parcels currently zoned R-1(S), R-2, PUD, and IPP Overlay. The underlying zoning would not change. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the proposed designation. Fifty-two of the seventy-two primary structures, the earliest (Pireus Store) dating from 1847, are proposed to be designated ―contributing;‖ and twenty primary structures are proposed to be designated ―non-contributing.‖ Non-contributing structures include three homes from the 1960’s; three from the 1970’s; two from the 1980’s; five from the 1990’s, including four single family attached; three from the 2000’s; and four from the 2010’s, including three multi-family structures built by JABA behind the Timberlake house. In addition, certain outbuildings and structures are proposed to be designated either ―contributing‖ (including the CSX RR bridge/stone abutments on Franklin Street dated 1878), or ―non-contributing.‖ There are ten vacant parcels included in the district, and also Riverview Cemetery. The cemetery itself and two small structures located there are ―contributing.‖ 9 The intent of the Historic Conservation Overlay District is to (1) identify and preserve buildings, structures and areas; (2) to protect a neighborhood’s scale and character; and (3) to document and promote an understanding of a neighborhood’s social history. The following is intended to be a summary of the effects of a historic conservation district:  All new structures require design review by the BAR.  An addition requires BAR approval if: (1) located on a corner lot; (2) located on the front or side of a building; (3) equal to or greater than 50% total gross floor area of the building; OR (4) exceeding the height or width of existing building.  Demolition of all or part of a ―contributing‖ structure requires BAR approval if: (4) The proposed demolition is located in whole or part to the front or side of the building OR (2) is equal to or greater than 33% of the total gross floor area of the building. The Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association is the third neighborhood association to request this type of historic designation for a portion of the neighborhood. Martha Jefferson was the first in 2010, followed by Venable Neighborhood Association in 2014. Project Review Overall Analysis 1. Proposed Use of the Property. The proposed use of the properties will not change with the historic district designation. Included within the proposed district boundaries are mostly single family dwellings; including four single-family attached dwellings; four duplexes; three multi-family dwellings; one church; a cemetery; a RR bridge; and ten vacant parcels. The historic designation would require that certain demolitions, new construction and additions would become subject to BAR review. 2. Zoning History The structures in the district were built between 1847- 2010, with most built before 1920. The zoning of the area over the years has remained fairly consistent. On the 1958 zoning map, this area was not yet annexed. Woolen Mills neighborhood east of Leake Lane was annexed in 1963. The 1991 zoning map showed R-1A and R-2 zoning. The 2003 zoning map showed R-1S and R-2 zoning. The four IPP’s were in place by 2003; but the Timberlake PUD was not added until 2010. 3. Character and Use of Adjacent Properties The character of this section of Woolen Mills is more rural than urban, due to the consistently low density development, front yard setbacks, wooded landscape, and lack of sidewalks. The railroad tracks conceal the view to the south, and the river creates a dead-end, preventing through-traffic on East Market and Chesapeake Streets. Direction Use Zoning North Single family residential R-2; R-1S; PUD East Single family residential; park; historic industrial R-1S; Park Overlay; buildings PUD; County 10 South Industrial uses M-1; County West Single Family residential R-1S 4. Reasonableness/Appropriateness of Current Zoning The current R-1S, R-2, PUD and IPP zoning is reasonable, appropriate, and consistent with the character of the area. However, some of the adjacent zoning, land uses, and proposed land uses are quite different from single family, and could be perceived as creating pressure to change to the character of the area. 5. Reasonableness/Appropriateness of Proposed Zoning The proposed Historic Conservation overlay district designation is an overlay zoning district, meaning it would add preservation and design review regulations, but the current underlying zoning designations would not change. The proposed Historic Conservation overly district would be reasonable and appropriate as a method to further protect the character and integrity of the area. 6. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan for this area recommends Low Density Residential except the Riverview Cemetery is designated for Park or Protected Open Space. The Historic Preservation and Urban Design Chapter, Goal 6, includes: 6.1 As requested by specific neighborhoods or when otherwise appropriate, consider additional neighborhoods or areas for designation as local historic districts (either Architectural Design Control Districts or Historic Conservation Districts) based on architectural and historic survey results. 6.7 Consider portions of the Woolen Mills neighborhood for Historic Conservation District designation. Therefore, the proposed district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Potential Uses of the Property The potential uses of the properties will not change with the historic district designation. The underlying zoning district designations would remain the same. Criteria to Establish a Historic Conservation District: The following criteria found in Section 34-336(c) shall be addressed by both the Planning Commission and the BAR when making recommendations. Staff’s assessment of the criteria is as follows: 11 (1) The age of buildings and structures; The period of significance is 1847-1962, with the majority of buildings constructed before 1920. (2) Whether the buildings, structures and areas are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places, or are eligible to be listed on such registers; The entire proposed district, except two vacant parcels, is currently listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register (12-17-2009) and on the National Register of Historic Places (4-12-2010). (3) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are of locally important historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological interest; The village’s domestic buildings showcase a range of architectural styles from Gothic Revival to Craftsman/Bungalow. The resources retain a high degree of integrity and give the historic district the feel of a late-19th century industrial village. (4) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are associated with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman, or have special public value because of notable features relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the Charlottesville community; The National Register District areas of significance include: Architecture, Industry, and Social History. (5) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exists a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history; and The Woolen Mills Village has been central to the City of Charlottesville’s history since the opening of a milling operation there in 1829. As a company mill town, the brick and frame dwellings in a range of styles built during the mid-19th century through the early 20th century have come to define the village. As a home for generations of families working in the Mills, the village developed into a stable neighborhood and was annexed in 1968. (6) Whether the buildings, structures or areas, when viewed together, possess a distinctive character and quality or historic significance. The Woolen Mills Village possesses a distinctive character and historic significance. The village displayed many of the features typical of southern mill towns – company-owned housing, a company store, a chapel. The residential portion feels far more rural than the more urban or suburban areas of Charlottesville developed in the same period. The proximity of the river, the railroad and the remaining 20th century mill buildings at the end of East Market Street are tangible reminders of the area’s industrial beginnings. Public Comments Received: Sixteen written correspondences were received, and are attached. Staff Recommendation: On September 20, 2016 the BAR recommended (9-0) that City Council should designate the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District ŃĵŀĴ ŀĴı ĮĻŁĺİĭľŅ ĭĺİ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij ĿŀľŁįŀŁľıĿ” ĭĿ ľıįĻĹĹıĺİıİ ĮŅ ĿŀĭIJIJƌ ĭĺİ The BAR defines the architectural character-defining features of the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District as outlined in the letter dated September 13, 2016 (attachment 4). [NOTE: Section 34-336 (b) requires that the BAR define character-defining features that would be referenced and reinforced when applying the design guidelines; and Section 34-338 (b) requires that, before an area is designated as a historic conservation district, structures that may qualify for designation as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) shall be identified. However, this petition is for a historic conservation district designation only – no additional IPP’s are being proposed at this time.] The Planning Commission should recommend, based on the criteria found in Section 34-336(c), that it is appropriate to designate this part of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood as a Historic Conservation Overlay District. The BAR and staff recommend that it is appropriate, based on the above criteria. As part of their motion, the Planning Commission should also confirm the referenced list of parcels within the proposed district boundary, and the contributing/non-contributing properties. The BAR and staff recommend the boundary and the contributing buildings as shown on the attached map, and as submitted by the applicant. . Suggested Motions: 1. ―I move to recommend that City Council approve this petition, including ZT16-00003 and ZM16-0000A, to rezone the properties included on the attached list of parcels, and as shown on the attached map, by adding a Historic Conservation Overlay District designation as requested, on the basis that the rezoning would serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, and would meet the historic criteria of Sec 34-336(c). Further, I recommend that the contributing properties are the same as described on the attached map.‖ (OR) 2. ―I move to recommend that City Council deny this petition to rezone properties by adding a Historic Conservation Overlay District designation.‖ Attachments: 1. Zoning text amendment ZT16-00003 - Actual language 2. Zoning map amendment ZM16-0000A - Tax map parcels to be rezoned 3. WMNA list of character-defining features dated September 13, 2016 4. Written comments from the public 5. BAR staff report – September 20, 2016 6. WMNA rezoning request email from Bill Emory 7. Historic Survey prepared by Lydia Brandt 5. BAR staff report – September 20, 2016 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW STAFF REPORT September 20, 2016 Recommendation Establishment of Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, Applicant Background The historic conservation district ordinance was adopted on March 16, 2009 to create a second, less stringent type of local (regulatory) historic district that would provide an alternative to the existing historic preservation and architectural design control (ADC) district. The intent of a historic conservation district is to protect historic buildings from unwarranted demolition, and to require a basic level of design review for new structures and additions. The first designation of this type was the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Historic Conservation District, requested by the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Association (MJNA), approved by City Council in 2010. The Rugby Road Historic Conservation District, requested by the Venable Neighborhood Association in 2014, was the second. Woolen Mills Village would be the third. The City also has eight ADC districts. July 12, 2016 – the Planning Commission initiated a proposed amendment to the city’Ŀ ņĻĺĵĺij ordinance and map, to wit: amending Article II, Division 5, Section 34-337 ŀĻ ĭİİ “WĻĻĸıĺ MĵĸĸĿ” ĭĿ a HĵĿŀĻľĵį CĻĺĿıľłĭŀĵĻĺ OłıľĸĭŅ DĵĿŀľĵįŀƌ ĭĺİ ĭĹıĺİĵĺij ŀĴı įĵŀŅ’Ŀ ņĻĺĵĺij Ĺĭļ ŀĻ ĭİİ WĻĻĸıĺ MĵĸĸĿ Historic Conservation District as an overlay distľĵįŀ ņĻĺĵĺij İıĿĵijĺĭŀĵĻĺƌ” What it means to be designated as a Historic Conservation District The historic conservation district designation was originally devised to protect the character and scale of the more modest historic Charlottesville neighborhoods that were facing increased development and tear-downs. The designation requires review by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) of all new structures, and certain additions and demolitions, all of which have the potential to change the character of the historic neighborhood. Otherwise, the intent is to minimize requirements on residents who may want to rehabilitate their homes. A historic conservation district is different from an ADC district in three main respects: (1) Unlike in an ADC District, where review is required of all exterior changes to existing buildings, in a historic conservation district BAR approval is only required for certain additions and demolitions; (2) The historic conservation district guidelines are short and simple; and (3) The residents of a historic conservation district are asked to help identify neighborhood features to be preserved. The guidelines and ordinance are attached; the following is intended to be a summary of the effects of a historic conservation district:  All new structures require design review by the BAR.  An addition requires BAR approval if: (1) located on a corner lot; (2) located on the front or side of a building; (3) equal to or greater than 50% total gross floor area of the building; OR (4) exceeding the height or width of existing building.  Demolition ĻIJ ĭĸĸ Ļľ ļĭľŀ ĻIJ ĭ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij” structure requires BAR approval if: (5) The proposed demolition is located in whole or part to the front or side of the building OR (2) is equal to or greater than 33% of the total gross floor area of the building. In addition,  Staff would interpret changing siding or roof material that is visible from the public right-of- way to be a demolition requiring BAR approval.  Removal or replacement of windows and doors within existing openings is not considered a demolition.  The historic conservation district ordinance does not address subdivisions.  Special use permit applications within the district would require a BAR recommendation.  The appeals process is the same as for an ADC District. Standard of Review City Council may, by ordinance, from time to time, designate properties and areas for inclusion within a historic conservation district. Any such designation must follow the process for an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map, including a public hearing and notification. Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the BAR shall define, taking into consideration information that may be provided by neighborhood residents, the architectural character-defining features of the proposed district. Those features would be referenced and reinforced when applying the district design guidelines. Before an area is designated as a historic conservation district, each structure shall be determined to be eitheľ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij” Ļľ “ĺĻĺ-įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺijƎ” EĭįĴ ĻIJ ŀĴı ĿŀľŁįŀŁľıĿ ŀĴĭŀ ĹĭŅ ĽŁĭĸĵIJŅ IJĻľ designation as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) under Section 34-273 within that area shall be identified. Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the BAR as to the proposed designation. Application The boundary of the historic conservation district, as proposed by Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, includes all properties that were included within the boundaries of the Woolen Mills Village National Register district, and that are located within the City. (The National Register District extended into Albemarle County at the end of East Market Street). In addition, staff is recommending inclusion of two additional currently vacant properties, to insure that any new construction would be compatible with the other properties in the district. There are approximately 80 parcels in the proposed district, most of which (approximately 52) įĻĺŀĭĵĺ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij” ļľĵĹĭľŅ ĿŀľŁįŀŁľıĿƎ Iĺ ĭİİĵŀĵĻĺƋ įıľŀĭĵĺ ĻŁŀĮŁĵĸİĵĺijĿ ŃĻŁĸİ Įı İıĿĵijĺĭŀıİ ĭĿ contributing, as shown on the attached map. There are currently four Individually Protected Properties (IPP) in the area: Timberlake–Branham House, Woolen Mills Chapel, Pireus Store, and House at Pireus. No additional structures are recommended to be designated as an IPP. The proposed historic conservation district designation is an overlay zoning district, meaning it would add regulations, but the current underlying zoning designations would not change. All properties in the proposed district are zoned R-1S Residential, except part of Riverview Cemetery is zoned R-2 Residential, and Timberlake Place is zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). Criteria to Establish a Historic Conservation District The following criteria found in Section 34-336(c) shall be addressed by both the Planning CĻĹĹĵĿĿĵĻĺ ĭĺİ ŀĴı BAR ŃĴıĺ Ĺĭķĵĺij ľıįĻĹĹıĺİĭŀĵĻĺĿƎ SŀĭIJIJ’Ŀ ĭĿĿıĿĿĹıĺŀ ĻIJ ŀĴı įľĵŀıľĵĭ ĵĿ ĭĿ follows: (1) The age of buildings and structures; The period of significance is 1847-1962, with the majority of buildings constructed before 1920. (2) Whether the buildings, structures and areas are listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places, or are eligible to be listed on such registers; The entire proposed district, except two vacant parcels, is currently listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register (12-17-2009) and on the National Register of Historic Places (4-12-2010). (3) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are of locally important historic, cultural, architectural or archaeological interest; The village’s domestic buildings showcase a range of architectural styles from Gothic Revival to Craftsman/Bungalow. The resources retain a high degree of integrity and give the historic district the feel of a late-19th century industrial village. (4) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are associated with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman, or have special public value because of notable features relating to the cultural or artistic heritage of the Charlottesville community; The National Register District areas of significance include: Architecture, Industry, and Social History. (5) Whether the buildings, structures or areas are part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exists a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history; and The Woolen Mills Village has been central to the City of Charlottesville’s history since the opening of a milling operation there in 1829. As a company mill town, the brick and frame dwellings in a range of styles built during the mid-19th century through the early 20th century have come to define the village. As a home for generations of families working in the Mills, the village developed into a stable neighborhood and was annexed in 1968. (6) Whether the buildings, structures or areas, when viewed together, possess a distinctive character and quality or historic significance. The Woolen Mills Village possesses a distinctive character and historic significance. The village displayed many of the features typical of southern mill towns – company-owned housing, a company store, a chapel. The residential portion feels far more rural than the more urban or suburban areas of Charlottesville developed in the same period. The proximity of the river, the railroad and the remaining 20th century mill buildings at the end of East Market Street are tangible reminders of the area’s industrial beginnings. Discussion and Recommendations 1. The BAR should decide, based on the above criteria, whether it is appropriate to designate the Woolen Mills Village as a historic conservation district. Staff recommends that it is appropriate based on the criteria. . 2. The BAR shoŁĸİ įĻĺIJĵľĹ ŀĴı ļľĻļĻĿıİ İĵĿŀľĵįŀ ĮĻŁĺİĭľŅ ĭĺİ ŀĴı “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij/ĺĻĺ- įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij” ļľĻļıľŀĵıĿƎ SŀĭIJIJ ľıįĻĹĹıĺİĿ ŀĴı NĭŀĵĻĺĭĸ RıijĵĿŀıľ ĮĻŁĺİĭľŅƋ ŃĵŀĴ ŀĴı addition of two vacant parcels shown in red on the attached map dated July 2016. (ATTACHMENT #2) Staff ľıįĻĹĹıĺİĿ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij ĿŀľŁįŀŁľıĿ” ĭĿ ļľĻļĻĿıİ Ļĺ NĭŀĵĻĺĭĸ Register map, City portion (ATTACHMENT # 3). 3. TĴı BAR ĿĴĻŁĸİ įĻĺIJĵľĹ ĿŀĭIJIJ’Ŀ ľıįĻĹĹıĺİĭŀĵĻĺ ŀĴĭŀ ĺĻ ĭİİĵŀĵĻĺĭĸ IĺİĵłĵİŁĭĸĸŅ PľĻŀıįŀıİ Properties (IPP) are proposed. 4. The BAR should define, taking into consideration information that has been provided by neighborhood residents, the architectural character-defining features of the proposed conservation district. See September 13, 2016 letter (ATTACHMENT #1) Suggested Motion Having considered the criteria set forth within the City Code, I move to recommend that City Council should designate the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District with the boundary ĭĺİ “įĻĺŀľĵĮŁŀĵĺij ĿŀľŁįŀŁľıĿ” ĭĿ ľıįĻĹĹıĺİıİ ĮŅ ĿŀĭIJIJƌ ĭĺİ The BAR defines the architectural character-defining features of the proposed Woolen Mills HĵĿŀĻľĵį CĻĺĿıľłĭŀĵĻĺ DĵĿŀľĵįŀ ĭĿ IJĻĸĸĻŃĿǥƎ ATTACHMENTS: 1. September 13, 2016 letter describing architectural character-defining features. 2. Map dated July 2016 showing proposed boundary 3. National Register map showing contributing/noncontributing structures (yellow dots indicate City/County boundary) 4. May 30, 2016 letter from bill Emory requesting district designation with attachments B & C. (Attachment A was emailed) 5. Letters received by citizens From: John Diven [mailto:littlediv3@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:28 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Cc: Emory, Bill Subject: The Woolen Mills Dear BAR, Planning Commission, and Council, My name is John R. Diven. I have been living at 214 18th Street N.E. for the last 14 years. My neighborhood is very important to me. I have raised my two sons here and consider my home in the Woolen Mills as an essential element of the great quality of my life that I have shared with them. I am writing to secure your support for our application for a Historic Conservation District zoning overlay. Please help us preserve the character and unique history of our neighborhood. Thanks for seriously considering this request. Sincerely, J.D. -----Original Message----- From: Beverly Wann [mailto:bevwann@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 9:17 PM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Woolen Mills Neighborhood Hello. I live on Chesapeake Street in the Woolen Mills neighborhood. I am very much in favor of designating our neighborhood a Historic Conservation District. It contains a unique history related to the river and mill, and has a character not found in any other corner of the City. The designation will ensure careful, thoughtful growth that will preserve the beauty of the past while accommodating the needs of the future. Thank you, Bev Wann 2 Robert R. Gibson 1803 Chesapeake Street Charlottesville, Va. 22902 434-295-4947 bob.gibson@virginia.edu September 12, 2016 Dear Charlottesville City Council, BAR and Planning Commission, My name is Bob Gibson, and I am a 34-year resident of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood. I write to support formal city designation of the Woolen Mills Village Conservation District. I hope that you will support designating the Woolen Mills as a Historic Conservation District. Our historic neighborhood does have a rich history along the Rivanna River. We have great old buildings and sites, including the Woolen Mills Chapel and the scenic Riverview Cemetery. For too long, the city has turned its back on and neglected the Rivanna, which is the most scenic natural feature of our neighborhood and is only recently being fully recognized as a great community resource. I do hope you will add to the neighborhood’s recognition and support the designation of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood. Thank you! Best, Bob Gibson 1803 Chesapeake Street 3 From: Jason Ivey [mailto:jay.ivey@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:45 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Woolen Mills Village Historic District Ms. Scala, We are writing in response to a letter we received from you dated 9/6/2016 about the Woolen Mills Proposed Historic District. We will be out of town on business and unable to attend the meeting scheduled for 9/20/2016. My wife and I live at 1808 East Market St. We want our comment to be heard in that we do not want our property to be included in the gerrymandered proposed map of properties of this intrusive "historic" district and disagree with this concept 100%. We believe there are numerous properties within this map that would be better off as vacant land or redeveloped verses the current structures. We believe this proposal is lacking transparency and looks gerrymandered. This appears to be an intrusion and attempt to stunt the growth and property values of our neighborhood. We support all of the recent additions and improvements we have ongoing in the neighborhood. Where are the results of the vote that was taken on this matter? What were the results? We do not want our property or neighborhood to be constrained by BAR. We want to know why the property owned by CSX and rented by Buckingham Branch Railroad next door to us has not been included in this rigged map? Please keep us informed as this proposal develops. Best, Jason & Sachi Ivey 310.804.2910 (c) 202.415.1823 (vm) 424.299.0047 (c) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1577677/ *** This e-mail is intended for the recipient indicated above. It may be confidential or protected from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise by return e-mail to jay.ivey@gmail.com and please destroy this e-mail. *** 4 -----Original Message----- From: Alexander, John A. (jaa9n) [mailto:jaa9n@eservices.virginia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:01 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Cc: Alexander, John A. (jaa9n) Subject: Support for Woolen Mills neighborhood as the City's third "Historic Conservation District" (CV) Dear Ms. Scala, I strongly support the zoning text amendment to designate sixty acres of the Woolen Mills neighborhood as the City's third "Historic Conservation District" (CV). I have lived in the Woolen Mills Neighborhood since the early 1980s and am an enthusiastic neighbor, active in the neighborhood association. Of the many things I love about the neighborhood, its strong sense of place, which in my opinion has been retained even as it has drown more dense. I also greatly enjoy the sense of vernacular design that emerges in the neighborhood and welcome this CV designation as a way that we might support, nurture and preserve that sense of place as we continue to grow and become more dense. Best regards, John John Alexander Associate Director, SHANTI Sciences, Humanities, and Arts Network of Technological Initiatives PO Box 400600 Alderman Library, Rm 323 University of Virginia http://shanti.virginia.edu/ ph. 434.243.6619 fx. 434.982.2363 Chair, General Faculty Council http://faculty.virginia.edu/jalexander/ Research: Reflective Writing and Making Meaning: http://bit.ly/MakingMeaningofGettingAway Poor People̡͖ Cψ̻͏ψ̣̖̼ ̑͒ψ̵ ϲ̣͖̓͒͠΍̝ http://bit.ly/ResurrectionCityResearch 5 From: Katie [mailto:katie@chesterandhound.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:45 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Woolen Mills Neighborhood:, Historic Conservation District Dear BAR Planning Commission and Council, ϵ̡̻ ·̣̣̼̖͒͠ ̣̼ ͖ͻ͏͏̓͒͠ ̓Ϯ ϠϤ͖̣̖̼ψ̣̼̖͠ ͖̣Ό͠΍ ψϖ͒Ϥ͖ ̓Ϯ ̠͠Ϥ ̵̺̓̓Ϥ̼ ̵̵̣͖̊ ̼Ϥ̣̖̠ϕ̠̓͒̓̓Ϡ ψ͖ C̠ψ̵͒̓͠͠Ϥ͖Ά̵̵̣Ϥ̡͖ ̠̣͒͠Ϡ ̤ϲ̣͖̣̓͒͠ϖ C̼͖̓Ϥ͒Άψ̣̼̓͠ Ḍ͖̣͒͠ϖ̥͠ ̈́C̹̞ͅ In the nineteenth century, the Woolen Mills neighborhood area grew up around the Woolen Mills, providing housing for the Mill workers. These are not the grand houses of the Mill owners, but the humble houses of the laborers. That does not make the character and scale of this neighborhood any less worthy of protection. To preserve only the neighborhoods with clear examples of idolized architectural styles is to partake in revisionist history. Perhaps your dream home looks significantly different than mine, perhaps your lifestyle values different amenities; neither is more valid than the other. The Woolen Mills is a tightly-woven, mixed- income community with a fierce sense of neighborhood pride. Its character, texture and human scale drew us here and keep us here. We urge you to see its beauty and understand its value through our eyes. Please support designating the Woolen Mills ̼Ϥ̣̖̠ϕ̠̓͒̓̓Ϡ ψ͖ C̠ψ̵͒̓͠͠Ϥ͖Ά̵̵̣Ϥ̡͖ ̠̣͒͠Ϡ ̤ϲ̣͖̣̓͒͠ϖ C̼͖̓Ϥ͒Άψ̣̼̓͠ Ḍ͖̣͒͠ϖ̥̞͠ Best, Katie Chester 1812 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 6 From: Robin Hanes [mailto:marchhanes@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:55 PM To: Balut, Stephen; Earnst, Emma; Graves, Whit; Keesecker, Kurt - 2nd address; Knott, Laura; Miller, Melanie; Mohr, Tim; Sarafin, Justin; Schwarz, Carl; Planning Commission; Council; Scala, Mary Joy; Mess, Camie Subject: Woolen Mills Historic Conservation Overlay Dear BAR, Council and Planning Commission, I renovated a home built in 1895 in the Woolen Mills. While we redesigned it for comfort and fun, I ̵̓ΆϤ ϕϤ̣̼̖ ͒Ϥ͖͏̼͖̣̓ϕ̵Ϥ Ϯ̓͒ ̠̣͖̓͒͠΍̞ ̂ϤϤ͏̣̼̖ ψ̼ ̵̓Ϡ ̠̓ͻ͖Ϥ̡͖ ϕ̼̓Ϥ͖ ψ̼Ϡ ϖ̵ψϠϠ̣̼̖ ̣͖ ψ̼ Ϥ̼Ά̣̼̻͒̓Ϥ̼͠ψ̵̵΍ sustainable practice. My house has complemented the character of our neighborhood for 120 plus years, a neighborhood full of history and social diversity. Please help us retain our structure and personality, help us encourage well thought-out future projects. Let us remain a cherished place where a flourishing new generation will want to stay. Sincerely, Robin Hanes 1709 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 From: Jim Benedict [mailto:jimbenedict94@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 11:15 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: writing to you in support of the Woolen Mills Historic application To whom it may concern. My wife and Myself - Kate and James Benedict-Burke are residents of the city and Woolen Mills neighborhood and reside at 1607 E market st. We have lived here 22 years in the city. Please include our names in support of the Wollen Mills Historic Conservation District. We strongly support this designation.A Historic Conservation District is intended to protect the character and scale of a historic neighborhood. Respectfully. -- Jim and Kate Benedict-Burke. Charlottesville,Va. cell 434 249 2158 7 From: bettyontube1 . [mailto:dominickdesigns@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 9:55 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Woolen mills preservation Good morning , I am writing you in support of the proposed tract in the woolen mills for conservation. I moved to my 100 or so year old home on the corner of Franklin in 2003. I have managed to hang in here in spite of so many obstacles but absolutely support this proposal. As a musician and a wedding florist I have met many people and am always warned by the response I get when saying I live in the woolen mills. This community and these homes are a special part of Charlottesville. I have spent these 13 years raising greenery and flowers for my business Secret Gardens and have no objection to the proposal. You might remember the kiosk days ! Never knew back then what the wedding industry would bring to Charlottesville ,but when I invite a bride here for a consult they are in awe of the charm....Rock walks, old mature trees, an English basement with its original stone floor and claw foot tub...shed with tin roof....still smelled of corn when we bought !! In case you don't know there's a ghost story about this house in the Charlottesville /albemarle ghost stories paperbacks ..."evil in the English basement "....an herbalist who lived here in the 70's wrote the piece ..... Thanks for your consideration ! Betty Jo Dominick 8 From: Sara Shullaw [mailto:sara.shullaw@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:27 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy; Fenwick, Bob; Galvin, Kathy; Szakos, Kristin; Signer, Michael; Bellamy, Wes; Clayborne, Corey; Dowell, Taneia; Green, Lisa; Keesecker, Kurt - 2nd address; Keller, Genevieve; Lahendro, Jody; Santoski, John Cc: Emory, Bill Subject: Woolen Mills Historic District Overlay Dear BAR, Planning Commission, and City Council, My name is Sara Shullaw. I have been a resident at 313 Steephill St in Woolen Mills for over 8 years. I am writing to ask that you please support our application for a Historic Conservation District overlay. My husband and I were originally drawn to the Woolen Mills neighborhood because of the character of the historic homes. We were lucky enough to purchase a home built in 1890. There is nothing like an old farmhouse with creaky, beautiful heart pine floors and slightly crooked door frames. We were thrilled to be able to remodel and add on to our home in 2014, updating plumbing, electrical, and insulation, while at the same time keeping in character with the original 1890 farmhouse style. We have so much pride in our home because it is truly unique and combined with other historic homes of the Woolen Mills it tells a story. It is so important we maintain and appreciate the remaining historic homes in our City, especially those that make up the fabric of a neighborhood like those in Woolen Mills. They provide authenticity for our City and connect us to our history. We hope that the Historic Conservation District Overlay will help us in our effort to maintain the unique character of our neighborhood. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Sara Shullaw 9 From: Syme, Preston (pts8q) [mailto:pts8q@eservices.virginia.edu] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 7:54 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Woolen Mills Conservation Overlay District Dear Planning Commission members, We are writing in support of the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. We live at 1600 East Market St. Our house is a contributing structure under the proposal. Even before buying our house in 1986, we, like many others, frequented the neighborhood to experience its feeling of space, its rural character and the variety of architectural styles. Thankfully, what first attracted us remains largely true today. It is still a remarkable neighborhood, with a rich history, a charming blend of historic and contemporary housing, and a rural feeling, while being only blocks from the Mall. In the 30 years we have been here there have been numerous proposals that many felt were threats to what makes our neighborhood so unique. Fortunately the majority of those ·Ϥ͒Ϥ ϠϤϮ̵Ϥϖ͠ϤϠ̛ ϕͻ͠ ̠͠Ϥ ͏͒̓ϖϤ͖͖ ͠ψͻ̖̠͠ ͻ͖ ̠͠ψ͠ ̤͏̖͒̓͒Ϥ͖͖̥ ̣͖ ψ ͒Ϥ̵Ϥ̵̼͠Ϥ͖͖ ͏͒Ϥ͖͖ͻ͒Ϥ̛ ψ̼Ϡ ̵ϤϮ͠ unchecked has a tendency to compromise what so many of us hold dear. To our mind the Historic Overlay proposal gives us one more way to protect our neighborhood from this pressure. As property owners we would gladly live with the very minimal requirements this proposal places on us versus living with the fear of something far worse happening without it. JABA voluntarily worked with the BAR in the design of Timberlake Place to make it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. We can do the same. In reading the background information about Conservation Districts we were struck by what a perfect fit the proposed Woolen Mills District is. If there was ever a place that matched the intent of enabling language, this is it. We urge you to approve the proposal. Preston Syme Michele Martin 1600 East Market St. 10 From: Edward Brownfield [mailto:ed.brownfield@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 9:39 PM To: Creasy, Missy; Scala, Mary Joy Cc: Bill May Subject: Zoning Text Amendment Ms. Creasy and Ms. Scala, I am writing to you concerning the public hearing that is scheduled for Wednesday evening November 9, 2016 concerning zoning amendment ZT17-00003 & ZM16-0000A. This public hearing concerns a proposed amendment making the area that includes a duplex at 1731 Chesapeake St. (Parcel 55A089200) historic. The property at 1731 Chesapeake St. is owned by GOR L/T, of which I am a beneficial owner. This duplex was built in 1973; it is not historic. I object to it being included in the proposed historic district. In looking at the drawing that was included in the information sent by Missy Creasy, it appears that the first two parcels to the east of the River View Cemetery are omitted from the historic district. I do not think that the duplex at 1731 Chesapeake St. should be included in the historic district either. There are two beneficial owners of GOR L/T, I am one and Bill May is the other owner. I am in Phoenix, AZ and cannot be at the public hearing on November 9th however I want to be on record that I oppose the area being designated as historic, and in particular the property at 1731 being included in a historic district. If you have questions or need to reach me my cell phone number is 434-981-0045. Best regards, Ed Brownfield From: Bill May [mailto:Bill.May@ERA.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:12 PM To: ed.brownfield@gmail.com; Creasy, Missy; Scala, Mary Joy Cc: bill.may@era.com Subject: RE: Zoning Text Amendment Ms. Creasy and Ms. Scala, I oppose the property at 1731 Chesapeake (Parcel 55A089200) being included in a historic district. I own this property with Ed Brownfield. The structure is a brick duplex built in 1970's. Always there for you... Bill Bill May, Broker ERA Bill May Realty Co. Office: 434-978-7355, 1-800-296-3721 Fax: 434-973-0122 Bill.May@ERA.com www.BillMayRealty.com 11 From: Peggy Van Yahres Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 1:06:00 PM To: Council; Planning Commission Subject: Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District As a long-time owner of a home in the Woolen Mills, which will be included in this district, my husband, Mike, and I support this Conservation proposal. Thanks Peggy and Mike Van Yahres 1700 Chesapeake St Charlottesville From: Catherine Dee [mailto:catherine@catherinedee.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 2:28 PM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Map Error/Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Mary Joy, I am the owner of an empty lot in the Woolen Mills (Parcel ID 560116100) that is contained within the boundaries of the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. When apprised of the conservation district proposal via mail a few weeks ago, I noticed an error on the map with regard to the designation of my own property. I believe (and I am going from memory since I have tried to look at the PDF to verify this and the resolution of the imagery is good sufficient ̓͠ ͖ϤϤ ̠͠Ϥ ͠ϤΌ͠ ϠϤ͠ψ̵̣͖ͅ ̠͠ψ͠ ̻΍ ̵̓͠ ·ψ͖ ̵ψϕϤ̵ϤϠ ψ͖ ϕϤ̣̼̖ ̠ϭ6Ϯβ̡̞ ϵϮ ̠̣͖͠ ̣͖ ̠͠Ϥ ͖͠ψ̼Ϡ̣̼̖ ̵ψϕϤ̵̛ ̣͠ ̣͖ incorrect and may be something you all should change since 1620 is an adjacent address. My property has no numeric designation in the category of house numerals (for lack of a better way of describing it!). Not sure if this is helpful but hopefully so. I am being reminded of this issue now as the hearing is this evening. Would you let me know? No rush. Thanks, Catherine Dee (434) 984 3358 12 From: Judy marie Johnson [mailto:renaissancewomyn@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 8:52 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: woolen mills dear ms scala ..although i voted for the designation,upon further understanding i wish to negate that vote, to withdraw my support for it.. my vote is no, judy marie johnson, owner of 1702 and1700 east market st and further you might update the map you are using as i built a cottage on my second lot (1700) over five years ago, and of course have been paying taxes on it as well...can you do that please?? thank you From: Lem Oppenheimer Subject: Woolen Mills Historic Overlay - Removal of Support Date: November 14, 2016 at 9:16:43 AM EST To: Cc: 'Jen Oppenheimer' Resent-From: To the members of City Council, I understand that the question of creating a historic overlay of Woolen Mills is going before council and may affect our property at 1615 East Market (which is a double lot). Previously in an informal vote ·̣̠̣̼͠ ̠͠Ϥ ̼Ϥ̣̖̠ϕ̠̓͒̓̓Ϡ̛ ·Ϥ ̠ψϠ ͖ͻ͏͏̓͒͠ϤϠ ̠̣͖͠ ̓ΆϤ̵͒ψ΍ ͏̵ψ̛̼ ϕͻ͠ ψ͖ ·Ϥ̡ΆϤ ͖͏̲̓Ϥ̼ ̓͠ ̻̓͒Ϥ ̼Ϥ̣̖̠ϕ͖̓͒ and looked closer at the ramifications of this, we would like to rescind our support and try to remove our house from the overlay if it does get put through. Thank you, Lem Oppenheimer Chief Operating Officer / Co-Founder Easy Star Records 434-326-5736 lem@easystar.com www.easystar.com 13 B. From persons who are not owners of property within the proposed district Katherine E. Slaughter 1503 Short 18th Street Charlottesville, Va. 22902 434-971-5813 kes1961@ntelos.net September 11, 2016 To: Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review, Charlottesville Planning Commission and Charlottesville City Council\ Re: Conservation District for Woolen Mills Neighborhood I hope that you will support designating the Woolen Mills as a Historic Conservation District. This neighborhood, of which I am a resident, has such a rich history, and many of the buildings and sites reflect this – including the Rivanna River, Riverview Cemetery and the Woolen Mills Chapel. Many of the homes are also representative of both the managers of the historic Woolen Mills and some of the workers – some of the oldest homes in the Mills are located in the County. Because the area overlaps the city-county line, it would be wonderful if the city and county could discuss their mutual interest in the area. Beginning in the 1980s, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources as well as the National Register of Historic Places began to recognize the concept of historic resources broadened beyond architecturally significant buildings or buildings of historically famous incidents or people to include representative examples from many historic periods, including industrial plants, worker housing, military buildings, barns, schools, battlefields, roads, bridges, and designed landscapes. In the Woolen Mills, strong neighborhood support exists for being designated as a Historic Conservation District. In May the WMNA mailed ballots to the 68 owners of the 80 parcels which would be affected by a proposed overlay. In the two weeks that followed, 72% (49) of the owners responded. Three voted “no”, forty-six voted “yes”. (I note that I am not an owner in the affected overlay district). The 2013 Comprehensive Plan also suggests consideration of portions of the Woolen Mills neighborhood for designation (See Chapter Seven, “Historic Preservation and Urban Design” goal 6.7.) I hope you will support the designation of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood. 14 From: Carol Hunt [mailto:chunt1@embarqmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:22 AM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Woolen Mills Historic District becoming Conservation District Dear Ms. Scala, I am writing to express my support for the Woolen Mills Historic District becoming a Conservation District. I would like to as the BAR and the Planning Commission to approve this request on the part of the residents of the historic district. Woolen Mills is a beautiful old neighborhood that is constantly being threatened by redevelopment and light industrial needs. We must do everything we can to preserve its unique character and harmonious architecture. Thank you for anything you can do to facilitate this request. Sincerely, Carol Hunt, Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association Member 15 16 From: Preservation Piedmont Date: Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:30 AM Subject: Designation of Woolen Mills Neighborhood To: Mary Joy Scala , Justin Sarafin City BAR , Carl Schwarz City BAR , Whit Graves City BAR , "Chair Melanie Miller City BAR Chair, Historic Resources Committee, Co-Chair" , Laura Knott City BAR , kkeesecker@brw-architects.com, Emma Earnst , Stephen Balut , Tim Mohr City BAR To Chairperson Miller and members of the Charlottesville Architecture Review Board, Preservation Piedmont, our local historic preservation organization, urges the BAR to support the local designation of the Woolen Mills neighborhood as a Historic Conservation District. Much of this neighborhood is on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. Sec. 34-271 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the City seeks to "preserve and protect buildings, structures and properties which serve as important visible reminders of the historic, cultural, and architectural or archaeological heritage of this city...". Thank you for protecting this important neighborhood. Jean Hiatt Preservation Piedmont Preservation Piedmont | P.O. Box 2803 | Charlottesville, VA | 22902 17 From: Lucia Stanton [mailto:cstanton1811@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:08 PM To: Scala, Mary Joy; Mess, Camie Subject: BAR meeting and Woolen Mills CV To members of the: Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review Charlottesville City Planning Commission Charlottesville City Council I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. This unique and evocative area needs every protective measure available to prevent the loss of its historic features and its distinctive character. On a personal note, although I live in the county and am not a Woolen Mills resident, I usually take out-of-town visitors to two places, Monticello and the Woolen Mills area. And my grown daughter makes a pilgrimage to the Woolen Mills every time she returns to town. I say this only to stress how special a place it is. I hope you will support every possible measure to protect this neighborhood, a treasure for us all. Your sincerely, Lucia (Cinder) Stanton Shannon Senior Historian Emerita (Monticello) Coordinator, Central Virginia History Researchers 18 Dear BAR, Planning Commission and City Council, My husband and I moved to Charlottesville twenty-five years ago. Over those many years we have experienced some exciting and some unwelcome, drastic changes to the city. Early on we became involved in our neighborhood association and appreciated the sense of community and connection to place that was being nurtured. I am proud that we were instrumental in the designation of the Martha Jefferson Historic District on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register, and that we became the first designated Historic Conservation District in the city. I am writing to urge you to approve the creation of the Woolen Mills Historic Conservation District. As you know, the guidelines are modest and not onerously restrictive, with the intent to protect the scale and character of the neighborhood. At a time when new development is burgeoning, it is more important than ever to treasure the unique and diverse corners of the city that still reflect its history and character. I believe it is important for city officials to respect the wishes of its residents and the integrity of all the city’s neighborhoods. Please support the application for the Woolen Mills Historic Conservation District zoning overlay. Sincerely, Ellen Casey Wagner 841 Locust Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22902 p.s. please note that while I am on the city’s Historic Resources Committee and the board of Preservation Piedmont, I am writing to express my personal view as a longtime city resident. 19 From: hevergreen [mailto:hevergreen@cs.com] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 3:32 PM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Letter Dear Planning Commission and City Council, I am a newly elected member of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association. I am asking that you approve our neighborhood request for Historic Conservation status. While I live in a different part of Woolen Mills from this district, it sets a tone for the whole area. There is a rich history here which deserves some protection. We have an interesting and vibrant mix of housing styles which we wish to maintain. Cordially, Howard Evergreen From: Pete Armetta Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:50:31 PM To: Planning Commission; Council Subject: Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Dear Planning Commissioners and City Councilors. In the spirit of keeping original neighborhoods intact and development proportionate to their character, I support the designation of the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. I also encourage its consideration in other downtown-adjacent residential neighborhoods along with form-based code and other tools that will help preserve local landscapes. This added layer of sensitivity is not too restrictive when the trade off is placekeeping, the building of neighborhood identity, and protection of our city's traditional affordable housing stock. Thank you, Pete Armetta 506 Ridge Street 20 From: cindy cartwright Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 5:49:35 PM To: Council; Planning Commission Subject: Woolen Mills Conservation District Dear Charlottesville Citizens We Entrust, I am writing in support of adopting a Historic Conservation District overlay in the Woolen Mills. Our neighborhood is certainly eclectic, but it's roots reside in history. We have no wish to change the patchwork quilt that surrounds us. As former residents of Manhattan, we embrace the diversity that inhabits our neighborhood. We were thrilled to be enjoy the 120th anniversary of our house a few years ago with neighbors. But when my family had lived in our house for ten years, we became the first family to do so in over 50 years. In the 1950s, our house was flipped into a duplex. Significant features of the house were permanently removed. History was altered in some highly questionable, and terribly energy inefficient, ways. Yet; most of the change makers during this time never lived in our house or owned it more than five years. So, tonight I ask you to vote for thoughtful renovations and thoughtful new construction. Homes should be restored and built. Structures that will sell quickly should be discouraged. Let's value thoughtful planning and long-term thinking. Cindy Cartwright 1404 East Market Street 21 From: Laura Covert [mailto:lcmacb@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 1:33 PM To: Scala, Mary Joy Subject: Conservation district question Greetings Mary Joy. I have a question about the conservation district that is in the works for Woolen Mills. I attended the information session you gave for the neighborhood board and at that time I asked the question as to whether or not out buildings would be required to be reviewed by the BAR. I recall that you said that they would not need to be reviewed, that the conservation district was more concerned with the front of houses and with new houses and tear downs of existing houses. The wording in the regulations says "all new structures require design review by the BAR." Does this include outbuildings like sheds/coops/garages etc? Please let me know. Many thanks Laura Covert From: Courtney Subject: Re: Woolen Mills district changes Date: November 14, 2016 at 9:32:03 AM EST To: Resent-From: It has just been brought to my attention that our property is included and we were never sent a ballot on this. This needs to be voted on again in fairness to everyone. Please respond. Thank you. On Nov 14, 2016, at 9:28 AM, Courtney wrote: Dear Council, We would like to notify the council that as property owners in the Woolen Mills, our property being located at 1315 East Market Street, that we are opposed to any change in the districts code and historic status now and in the future. Luckily our house is not affected directly in the current change that is up for approval, however we will not agree to any changes in the status of our property in the future and are against the current change. Thank you, Courtney and Arthur Heyward 1315 East Market Street 22902 22 8. National and Virginia Register historic district survey and map link http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=15458 9. Staff’s letters to affected property owners May 19, and June 12, 2017 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE “A World Class City” Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org May 19, 2017 RE: Proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District Notification and Poll Dear Property Owner: This notification and poll is being sent to you as an affected owner of property located within the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. There is a map of the proposed district in this mailing. If you own multiple properties in the proposed district, you will receive a letter for each property. The proposed zoning overlay district was originally proposed by the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association (WMNA), and was recommended by the Board of Architectural Review on September 20, 2016, and by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2016. On December 21, 2016 John Frazee, the President of WMNA, requested deferral of City Council’s consideration of the proposed district for six months, or until the final revisions to the historic conservation district code were adopted. City Council adopted the code changes on April 17, 2017. (A copy of both the Ordinance and related Design Guidelines are attached for your information.) Therefore, the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District may now be scheduled before City Council for a final decision. First, we would like to ask for your opinion in a poll, to advise Council how much support the proposed district has among affected property owners. However, this is not a vote. City Council does not make zoning decisions by popular vote. Council’s ultimate action will be based on its assessment of whether or not the proposed conservation district will serve public interests, and its decision will be informed by the results of your response to this poll, along with other factors. To date, some Woolen Mills residents have suggested that the City should consider adopting an ―opt-out‖ provision to be included within the proposed historic district regulations. The City Attorney’s Office has advised that opt-out provisions are not within the City’s zoning authority conferred by the Virginia General Assembly. According to the City Attorney’s Office, opt-out provisions:  Would likely constitute an unlawful delegation of city council’s legislative zoning powers to private parties;  Would likely constitute ―SPOT ZONING‖ because the decision as to whether a particular property would be part of, or excluded from, the conservation district would be based purely on the private interests of an individual landowner, rather than the overall welfare of the general public and good zoning practice; and  Would possibly create grounds for a court to invalidate the entire conservation district ordinance, due to a lack of uniformity—some properties that are ―contributing‖ (based on objective criteria) would be subject to regulation, while other properties that are ―contributing‖ would not. We are asking that you respond to one question on the enclosed post card: Do you prefer that your property is included in the proposed historic district? If you respond ―no,‖ please give the reason(s) for your response. For your reference, the criteria that are used to determine which properties should be included within a local conservation/ historic district are set forth within the zoning ordinance, see City Code sec. 34-336. All comments are welcome. If you own multiple properties in the proposed district, you will receive one post card for each property. Please drop the postcard(s) in the mail so that they are postmarked by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2017. Later, you will receive a notice of the tally, and the upcoming City Council public hearing date. If you should have any questions regarding this mailing, please contact Mary Joy Scala, Preservation and Design Planner at 434-970-3130 or scala@charlottesville.org Sincerely Yours, Mary Joy Scala Preservation and Design Planner CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE “A World Class City” Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org June 12, 2017 RE: Proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District - Council Meeting Dear Property Owner: This letter is to inform you, as an affected property owner of property located within the proposed Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District, of the recent City poll results, and to notify you of the upcoming City Council meeting date when Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed historic district. Of the 85 notices we mailed in May, we received back 65 postcards, or 76% of the total. The results are as follows: 37 postcards were received marked: NO, I prefer that the following property IS NOT included in the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. 26 postcards were received marked: YES, I prefer that the following property IS included in the Woolen Mills Village Historic Conservation District. 2 postcards were ―returned to sender‖ in original envelopes with no response. Council’s ultimate action will be based on its assessment of whether or not the proposed conservation district will serve public interests, and its decision will be informed by the results of your response to this poll, along with other factors. City Council will hold a public hearing (and the first of two required readings) at their regular meeting on Monday, July 17, 2017, starting at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, City Hall, 605 East Main Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. An agenda will be posted on the City website. If you should have any questions regarding this mailing, please contact Mary Joy Scala, Preservation and Design Planner at 434-970-3130 or scala@charlottesville.org Sincerely yours, Mary Joy Scala Preservation and Design Planner CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Yes (First Reading of Ordinance) Presenter: Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney Lauren Hildebrand, Director of Utilities Title: Release of a Portion of a Gas Line Easement: Shops At Stonefield Background: In January of 2015, the City acquired a natural gas line easement across property designated as Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 61A-3-19A, located in the Shops at Stonefield shopping center. The building at 3924 Lenox Avenue in the Stonefield shopping center encroaches into the easement and the property owner has requested release of a portion of the easement. At the request of the Utilities Department, an ordinance releasing a portion of the 2015 easement, a deed of release, and the plat depicting its location have been prepared. Discussion: The easement to be partially released was granted to the City in 2015, but no gas lines have ever been installed in the easement area. The Department of Utilities has no objection to the release of this small portion of the easement in order to cure the encroachment. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Not applicable. Community Engagement: A public hearing is required by law to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed conveyance of a property interest. Notice of such public hearing was advertised in the local newspaper at least 7 days in advance of the public hearing. Budgetary Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance releasing a portion of the existing gas easement. Attachments: Request Letter; Ordinance and Deed of Release of Easement (with plat attached). AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF A PORTION OF A NATURAL GAS EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY BY OCT STONEFIELD PROPERTY OWNER, LLC WHEREAS, OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC is the current owner of property located at 3924 Lenox Avenue in The Shops at Stonefield shopping center in the County of Albemarle, and WHEREAS, OCT Stonefield Property Owner, LLC has requested release of a portion of the permanent natural gas easement granted to the City by deed dated January 8, 2015, of record in the Albemarle County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 4576, page 428, in order to cure an existing encroachment of their building into the easement area, as shown on a plat made by W/W Associates, dated March 15, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utilities has reviewed the request and determined that the City has no objection to releasing said portion of the above described easement; 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 partial release of this easement; 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 Release of Easement, in form approved by the City Attorney, to release a portion of the above-described natural gas easement. Prepared by S. Craig Brown, Esq. (VSB #19286) Charlottesville City Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 911, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Albemarle Tax Map 061W0-03-00-019A0 (Shops at Stonefield) This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code §58.1-802 pursuant to Virginia Code §58.1-811(C)(4). THIS DEED OF PARTIAL RELEASE OF EASEMENT, made and entered into this _____ day of September, 2017, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation, Grantor, hereinafter “City”, and OCT STONEFIELD PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, “Grantee”, whose address is 240 Royal Palm Way, Suite 201 Palm Beach, FL, 33480. WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the City hereby VACATES, ABANDONS, QUITCLAIMS and EXTINGUISHES all right, title and interest to a portion of the natural gas easement acquired by the City by Deed of Easement dated January 8, 2015, of record in the Clerk’s Office for the Albemarle County Circuit Court in Deed Book 4576, page 428. The vacated easement area is located on property owned by Grantee near Blackbird Lane in Albemarle County, and shown as a cross-hatched area labeled “15’ Gas Line Easement Created on Parcel 1 with DB 4576 PG 428 To Be Vacated At Face of Wall (Hatched Area – 358.5 SF)” on the attached plat dated March 15, 2017 made by W/W Associates. WITNESS the following signature and seal. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA By: ___________________________________ A. Michael Signer, Mayor STATE OF VIRGINIA City of Charlottesville The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid City and State, by A. Michael Signer, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, on this _________ day of _______________________, 2017. My commission expires: _____________________________ _________________________________________ Notary Public Registration #: __________________ CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action: vote on resolutions Presenter: Maurice Jones, City Manager Title: Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson Statues; Downtown Redesign Master Plan Background and Discussion: City Council created the ad-hoc Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (BRC) on May 2, 2016 to address the questions and concerns brought before Council regarding the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Eleven commission members were appointed after an application process. They were charged with providing Council with options for telling the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race relations and for changing the City’s narrative through our public spaces. A final report was presented to Council on December 19, 2016. Council reviewed the Commission’s recommendations at its January 17, 2017 meeting. On February 6, 2017, the City Council voted 3-2 to remove the Lee statue from Lee Park. In separate motions, the Council voted unanimously to rename both Lee and Jackson Park and to move forward with developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services to create a Master Plan for the Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts. The City was sued in March of 2017. The plaintiffs in the case sought injunctive relief to keep the City from moving the Lee Statue and renaming both parks. The judge in the case ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the moving of the statue but allowed the City to move forward with renaming the parks. Also at that meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to support Councilor Kathy Galvin’s resolution to transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC such that a more complete history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed. This evening the Council will be considering amendments to that resolution to take into consideration the possibility of designing Justice Park with and without the Jackson statue. On August 12, 2017 a violent protest broke out in and around Emancipation Park in downtown Charlottesville. Ultimately one Charlottesville area resident, Heather Heyer, was killed in a domestic terror attack and two Virginia State Troopers, Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M. M. Bates perished in a helicopter accident. Dozens of others were injured that day. In light of the trauma inflicted on our City, the City Council, at its August 21 meeting, agreed to consider a resolution at the September 5 meeting to remove and relocate the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park and expedite the removal of both the Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues pending final disposition. The attached resolution was proposed by Vice Mayor Bellamy for consideration at the September 5 meeting. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: A Community of Mutual Respect “In all endeavors, the City of Charlottesville is committed to racial and cultural diversity, inclusion, racial reconciliation, economic justice, and equity. As a result, every citizen is respected. Interactions among city leaders, city employees and the public are respectful, unbiased, and without prejudice.” This also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Foster Strong Connections, and the initiative to respect and nourish diversity. Budget: The cost for moving the statues is unknown at this time; however it is proposed that any cost to the City for moving the statue would be paid back by the successful bidder in the Request for Bids (RFB) process for disposition of the statue. Alternatives: Council could choose to not approve the resolution. Attachments: Resolution: Vice Mayor Bellamy’s resolution “To remove and relocate the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park and expedite the removal of both the Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues pending final disposition.” Resolution: Councilor Galvin’s revisions to resolution “To transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces to tell a more complete history of race.” RESOLUTION To remove and relocate the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park and expedite the removal of both the Jackson and Robert E. Lee statues pending final disposition WHEREAS the monuments of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson that sit in Charlottesville’s Emancipation and Justice Parks were erected not as war memorials after the Civil War, but as 20th Century testaments to a fictionalized, glorified narrative of the rightness of the Southern cause in that war, when the actual cause was an insurrection against the United States of America promoting the right of southern states to perpetuate the institution of slavery; and WHEREAS the continued presence of these monuments conveys the visual message that Charlottesville supports the cause for which these generals fought; and WHEREAS the Monuments of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have become flashpoints for white supremacist violence throughout the summer of 2017, with white nationalist and Ku Klux Klan rallies at the Jackson monument and culminating in the armed invasion of Charlottesville during the “Unite the Right” rally “defending” the Lee monument; and WHEREAS the continued presence of these monuments in Charlottesville’s historic downtown district constitute a clear and continuing threat to public safety, both from continuing white supremacist defense of their presence and from anti-racist activists who may feel motivated to vandalize them; and WHEREAS City Council voted on February 6, 2017, to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee from the park formerly known as Lee Park, and to change the name of the park; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, order the removal of the statue of Stonewall Jackson from Justice Park as soon as possible, pending successful resolution of the current court case; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Charlottesville will issue a Request for Bids for disposition of the statue, and will advertise this RFB widely, including to organizations responsible for sites with historic or academic connection to Robert E. Lee or the Civil War, with the following criteria for award:  The statue will not be displayed to express support for a particular ideology.  The successful applicant will pay for or take responsibility for removal and transportation.  The removal and transportation will be carried out in a manner that preserves the integrity of the sculpture.  The display of the statue will preferably be in an educational, historic or artistic context.  The purchaser will pay for any repair for any damage to the park incurred as a result of the removal.  Some preference will be given to proposals that include a plan for maintenance of the statue’s National Register of Historic Places listing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no responsive proposals are received, Council may consider donation of the statue to an appropriate venue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that until successful bids are accepted, pending successful resolution of the current court case, both statues will be moved to a storage location pending final disposition, and successful bidders will be required to reimburse the cost of removal. AMENDMENTS to the RESOLUTION: To transform the City of Charlottesville’s core public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (BRC) such that a more complete history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed. WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council made a clear commitment to reveal and tell the full story of race through our City’s public spaces when it established the BRC in August 2016; and WHEREAS the BRC’s Final Report acknowledged that far too often our public spaces and histories have ignored, silenced or suppressed African American history, as well as the legacy of white supremacy and the unimaginable harms done under that cause; and WHEREAS the public spaces of Charlottesville’s Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts contain the *Robert E. Lee statue in Lee ParkEmancipation Park, the Stonewall Jackson statue in Jackson Justice Park, the slave auction block and the Reconstruction era’s Freedman’s Bureau; BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Charlottesville directs staff to: • In consultation with community and stakeholder groups chosen at the discretion of the City Manager such as the Jefferson School African American Heritage Center, the PLACE Design Task Force, the Human Rights Commission and the Historic Resources Commission to write and issue (within 90 days of the adoption of this Resolution) a Request for Proposal (RFP) for professional design services to create a Master Plan for the Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts that would; o Remove the *Robert E. Lee and *“Stonewall” Jackson statues from Emancipation and Justice Parks, pending court decisions and/or changes in the Virginia Code, o Provide near- and long-term park redesigns for both Justice and Emancipation Parks with and without the statues (as resolving the fate of these statues may take time, but the need to begin changing the narrative surrounding these statues is immediate), o Redesign and transform Jackson Justice Park through including the addition of a **new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Redesign Lee Emancipation Park, independent of the Lee statue including the addition of a **new memorial in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC and results of an extensive public engagement process while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, o Replace the current plaque at the slave auction block with one that is legible, o Identify and acknowledge the site of the Freedman’s Bureau. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all submissions through the RFP process shall: • Provide for each park at least two preliminary Master Plan options (one with and one without the statues) of the above inclusive of new site plans, elevations and sections, 3D visualizations, and specifications for signage, commemorative plaques, lighting and landscape elements as appropriate throughout this historic precinct so as to create a coherent narrative. • Engage the community at large in a manner that ensures that those underrepresented communities were fulsomely included in the process, as well as the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) the Historic Resources Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the PLACE Design Task Force, Planning Commission and City Council. • Provide preliminary cost estimates on all options. • Establish a timeline to be completed within 12 months of contract signing. • Allow for the development, design and implementation of a final Master Plan as adopted by City Council, through a total project budget not to exceed $1,000,000.00* • Be given a three month extension for all submissions from the date pf the adoption of these amendments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall meet as soon as possible to vote on the removal of both statues as required by Charlottesville City ordinances, so that there is no procedural delay in removing the statues should the courts find in the City’s favor. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, supports re-naming Jackson Park and hereby directs staff to bring Council a range of options on how and what to rename the park within 60 days of the adoption of this Resolution for its consideration. * NOTE: The Robert E. Lee statue will be relocated as per a 3:2 majority vote by City Council on February 6, 2017. The “Stonewall” Jackson statue will be relocated as per the date of the adoption of these amendments. **NOTE: Should the fabrication and installation of a new memorial for Charlottesville’s enslaved population (and other memorials) exceed the established budget, additional grants and private funds shall be raised to supplement the City’s contribution. The actual design of a new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population (and an as yet to be determined memorial in Emancipation Park) shall be determined by an independent process (including but not limited to a design competition.) (Resolution offered by Councilor Galvin, February 6, 2017 with amendments submitted by Councilor Galvin, on August 21, 2017) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: September 5, 2017 Action Required: Direct staff Presenters: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Kaki Dimock, Director Human Services Charlene Green, Manager, Office of Human Rights Title: Community Remembrance Project with the Equal Justice Initiative Background: Council created an ad-hoc blue ribbon commission on May 2, 2016 to address the questions and concerns brought before them regarding race, memorials and public spaces in Charlottesville. Eleven commission members were appointed after an application process. They were charged with providing Council with options for telling the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race relations and for changing the City’s narrative through our public spaces. The Chair of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), Don Gathers, presented a final report to Council on December 19, 2016. A total of 9 recommendations were made base on the charge from City Council. Action has been taken on several of the recommendations, with considerable attention given to the statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson. This agenda item reviews the commission’s recommendation to participate in the Equal Justice Initiative's Memorial to Peace and Justice acknowledging the lynching in Albemarle County of John Henry James. Discussion: Working with the Equal Justice Initiative would have four important components. • The writing, installation, and unveiling of a historical marker • An essay contest for high school students reacting to historical events identified by EJI. • Soil collection from the site of installation for display in our community and at the National Memorial to Victims of Lynching • Visiting the EJI museum and retrieving a local memorial module for installation. 1 Staff is currently working under the assumption that, should we move forward, the memorial module and historical marker would be located in Justice Park. The location for the soil collection remembrance has not been previously discussed. From The EJI website and supplementary materials: EJI's Community Remembrance Project is part of our campaign to recognize the victims of lynching by collecting soil from lynching sites and creating a memorial that acknowledges the horrors of racial injustice. Community members are invited to join EJI staff to collect soil from sites throughout Alabama. Between the Civil War and World War II, thousands of African Americans were lynched in the United States. Lynchings were violent and public acts of torture that traumatized black people throughout the country and were largely tolerated by state and federal officials. EJI has documented more than 4000 racial terror lynchings in 12 Southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950 – 84 of these victims were lynched in Virginia. Lynching profoundly impacted race relations in this country and shaped the geographic, political, social, and economic conditions of African Americans in ways that are still evident today. Terror lynchings fueled the mass migration of millions of black people from the South into urban ghettos in the North and West in the first half of the 20th century. Lynching created a fearful environment in which racial subordination and segregation were maintained with limited resistance for decades. Most critically, lynching reinforced a legacy of racial inequality that has never been adequately addressed in America. Public acknowledgment of mass violence is essential not only for victims and survivors, but also for perpetrators and bystanders who suffer from trauma and damage related to their participation in systematic violence and dehumanization. Yet most lynchings, and their victims, have never been publicly recognized. To create greater awareness and understanding about racial terror lynchings, and to begin a necessary conversation that advances truth and reconciliation, EJI is working with communities to commemorate and recognize the traumatic era of lynching by collecting soil from lynching sites across Alabama. This soil collection project is intended to bring community members closer to the legacy of lynching and to contribute to the effort to build a lasting and more visible memory of our history of racial injustice. Jars of collected soil will be part of an exhibit that will reflect the history of lynching and express our generation's resolve to confront the continuing challenges that racial inequality creates Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The blue ribbon commission reflects the City’s vision to be a “Community of Mutual Respect.” This also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Foster Strong Connections, and the initiative to respect and nourish diversity. 2 Budgetary Impact There is currently no budget impact anticipated for the City of Charlottesville. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council endorse the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces. Staff recommends that the placement of the historical marker and lynching memorial module be included in the scope of work for the Downtown Parks Master Plan. Staff requests direction from Council on the most appropriate location for the soil sample from the community remembrance project. Alternatives: Council may choose to not move forward at this time or to endorse only some of the components of the recommendation. Attachments: The lynching of John Henry James (various references prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission) Lynching in America: A Community Remembrance Project Link to video to be shown at Council presentation : https://eji.org/national-lynching-memorial 3 The Lynching of John Henry James at Wood’s Crossing on July 12, 1898 “The lynching of John Henry James will be far more damaging to the community than it will be to the alleged criminal. His troubles are o’er; those of the community have just begun.” Richmond Planet, July 16, 1898 “John Henry James is not a resident of Charlottesville. He came here a tramp, but has been around the city for five or six years. He has been in various occupations, and possibly several times a valued member of the chain-gang. As far as we can learn he has no relatives or friends in this section.” “When the train was nearing Wood’s Crossing, about four miles west of this city, the officers noticed a crowd at the station . . . As soon as the train slowed up, a number of men, unmasked, boarded the platforms, front and rear all were armed with pistols and there seemed to be about 150 in the crowd. . . . a rope was thrown over his head and he was carried about 40 yards to a small locust tree near the blacksmith shop. . . . As soon as he was elevated the crowd emptied their pistols into his body, probably forty shots entering it.” “He Paid the Awful Penalty” Daily Progress, Tuesday July 12, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076186/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2076187/5207.5/1513.5/3/1/0 Wood's Crossing was on the C&O railroad, 0.3 mile west of Farmington and 2.9 miles east of Ivy Depot, according to an old table of Virginia railroad stations. http://www.railwaystationlists.co.uk/pdfusarr/virginiarrs.pdf “She described her assailant as a very black man, heavy-set, slight mustache, wore dark clothes, and his toes were sticking out of his shoes. 4 "About noon a negro named John Henry James was arrested in Dudley's barroom as answering somewhat the description of Miss Hotopp's assailant. . . . “. . . It is said that the young lady resisted the fellow to the extent of scratching his neck so violently as to leave particles of flesh under her fingernails and so effective was the resistance that he failed of accomplishing his foul purpose." “Atrocious and Outrageous” Daily Progress, Monday July 11, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076181/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2076182/5396/1283.5/3/1/0 Reports in the Richmond Planet: "They Lynched Him: A Brutal Murder--Mob Makes No Efforts at Disguise" Richmond Planet, 16 July 1898 page 1 http://tinyurl.com/zxym3wf “The lynching of John Henry James, (colored) was as dastardly in its conception and as heinous in its execution as the crime with which he stood charged. . . . The lynching of John Henry James will be far more damaging to the community than it will be to the alleged criminal. His troubles are o’er; those of the community have just begun.” "Another Virginia Lynching" Richmond Planet, 16 July 1898, page 4 http://tinyurl.com/zdouovf More reports in the Daily Progress: “Being asked as to his guilt or innocence, he admitted that he was the right man . . . the crowd thought there was no reason for delay, and they decided to lynch the prisoner, who then begged for his life and protested his innocence but without avail. . . . The fact that there is no doubt of his guilt makes the people of Charlottesville heartily approve the lynching, as in this way the innocent victim is spared the terrible ordeal of being a prosecuting witness.” “Result of Coroner’s Inquest” Daily Progress, Wednesday July 13, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076191/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2076192/5550/1072.5/4/1/0 “From an Eyewitness” Daily Progress, Saturday July 16, 1898 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076206/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2076207/5562/3508.5/4/1/0 “The Lynching of James: The Staunton ‘Spectator’ Has Somewhat to Say on the Subject” Daily Progress, Thursday July 21, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2076226/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2076227/5607/2983.5/4/1/0 5 Reports in the Staunton Spectator and Vindicator: “Mob Law” Staunton Spectator and Vindicator, July 21, 1898, page 2 http://tinyurl.com/hubvtj “The exact reason why the Sheriff of Albemarle, took the local train instead of the fast train to Charlottesville with his prisoner, James, who was lynched was not considered a material question before the coroner.” Staunton Spectator and Vindicator, July 21, 1898, page 2 http://tinyurl.com/zu4aqfk The Hotopps Julia Hotopp’s father had died two months before these events occurred: William Hotopp Obituary Daily Progress, May 05, 1898, page 1 http://search.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/uva-lib:2075908/view#openLayer/uva- lib:2075909/5358.5/2059.5/3/1/0 William Friedrich Hotopp (1832-1898) Pen Park-Gilmer Estate Cemetery, Albemarle County, Virginia http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=41084516 The Hotopp estate was where Pen Park is now. In 1911 Julia Hotopp was living with her widowed mother Emma in Washington, D. C. She was arrested and sent to Washington Asylum Hospital for observation when she went to the police and asked for protection, saying that “scores of men interfered with her when she was painting landscapes about Washington.” 6 Julia Hotopp’s name continued to appear in the legal record columns of the Washington newspapers every few years through 1930: “In re lunacy of Julia Hotopp, report of committee confirmed.” However, her mother Emma died on March 15, 1914, and Julia Hotopp is listed in city directories in the Los Angeles, CA area from 1914 until her death on March 25, 1948. Her widowed sister Agnes Pauline Hotopp Duke also lived in the Los Angeles area until her death in 1944. 7 This page intentionally left blank. Lynching in America: A Community Remembrance Project Between the Civil War and World War II, thousands of African Americans were lynched in the United States. Lynchings were violent and public acts of torture that traumatized black people throughout the country and were largely tolerated by state and federal officials. “Terror lynchings” peaked between 1880 and 1940 and claimed the lives of African American men, women, and children who were forced to endure the fear, humiliation, and barbarity of this widespread phenomenon unaided. This was terrorism. The Equal Justice Initiative has documented more than 4000 racial terror lynchings in 12 Southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950. Lynching profoundly impacted race relations in this country and shaped the geographic, political, social, and economic conditions of African Americans in ways that are still evident today. Terror lynchings fueled the mass migration of millions of black people from the South into urban ghettos in the North and West throughout the first half of the 20th century. Lynching created a fearful environment in which racial subordination and segregation were main- tained with limited resistance for decades. Most critically, lynching reinforced a legacy of racial inequality that has never been adequately addressed in America. EJI has initiated a campaign to recognize the victims of lynching by collecting soil from lynching sites and creating a memorial that acknowledges the horrors of racial injustice. We aim to transcend time and altered terrain to bear witness to this history and the devastation these murders wrought upon individuals, families, communities, and our nation as a whole. We invite you to join our effort to help this nation confront and recover from tragic histories of racial violence and terrorism and to create an environment where there can truly be equal justice for all. Cover photo and photo opposite by Ozier Muhammad Equal Justice Initiative Exhibit Room, Montgomery, Alabama 1 On August 14, 1904, a white woman in Thomaston, Alabama, claimed that a black man had entered her home and frightened her. A posse of white men soon formed and seized Rufus Lesseur, a black man, simply because someone claimed that a hat found near the house belonged to him. During this era, black people often were the targets of suspicion when a crime was alleged, and accusations against black people were rarely subjected to scrutiny. The white men locked a terrified Mr. Lesseur into a tiny calaboose, or makeshift jail, in the nearby woods (pictured here) and left him there for more than a day. Then at 3:00 a.m. on August 16, without an investigation, trial, or conviction, a mob of white men broke into the structure, dragged Rufus Lesseur outside, and lynched him, leaving his body riddled with bullets. He was 24 years old. 2 Rufus Lesseur was one of four known lynching victims in Marengo County, Alabama. He was lynched by a mob of unmasked white men in a town with only 300 residents, but the State claimed that no one could be identified, arrested, or prosecuted. Photos by Ozier Muhammad 3 In 2015, EJI began speaking to community leaders about the need to acknowledge and discuss the history of lynching and racial terror in America. We published a report after we documented hundreds of previously unrecognized lynchings across the American South. EJI staff outlined an ambitious campaign to recognize the victims of lynching and racial terror in America by collecting jars of soil from each lynching site. Pictured: EJI Executive Director Bryan Stevenson meets with community leaders in Montgomery, Alabama. 4 Photo by Ozier Muhammad Staff Attorney Jennifer Taylor Deputy Program Manager Kiara Boone Executive Director Photo by Elvin D. Lang Bryan Stevenson Photo by Ozier Muhammad Senior Attorney Sia Sanneh 5 On October 7, 1910, a white mob in Montgomery, Alabama, tried to abduct and lynch black men being held in jail on suspicion of “mis- cegenation” or interracial sexual relations. When they were unable to get the men out of the jail, the frustrated mob lynched a black taxi driver named John Dell who was sitting in his cab nearby. No one was ever arrested or prosecuted for his murder. 6 Photos by Ozier Muhammad There has never been any effort to acknowledge the death of Mr. Dell or more than a dozen other lynching victims in Montgomery. In Feb- ruary 2016, legal staff from EJI went to the site of the Dell lynching and collected soil as part of our community remembrance project. 7 Hundreds of people have come to EJI to learn about the history of racial terror lynchings and the tragic legacy of this era of racial terrorism. Community members have also visited lynching sites across the state as participants in the soil collection and community remembrance project. 8 Photo by Elvin D. Lang At the conclusion of presentations, EJI staff match community group members with particular lynching sites and provide narratives about specific lynchings and directions to the site. Participants are given a jar with the name of a lynching victim and the date and location of the atrocity. Photo by Ozier Muhammad 9 College students carry jars and trowels as they embark on a journey to Alabama lynching sites, where they will recover soil to honor victims and commemorate the racial terror and tragic violence that took place at these locations. 10 Photo by Ozier Muhammad On June 18, 1934, a mob of white men lynched an innocent 16- year-old black boy in Pine Level, Alabama. Earlier in the day, a local white man reported that he had been attacked by a black man. A mob formed but could not find the alleged attacker, so the men seized Otis Parham, who told them he knew nothing about the incident. The mob began to beat the teenager. He tried to run, and was then shot to death by the angry crowd. His body was thrown into a ditch. The lynching was not investigated, and no one was arrested or prosecuted for the murder, although most mem- bers of the mob would have been known to law enforcement. 11 In Elmore County, Alabama, two black men were accused of driving carelessly and causing a horse driven by a white farmer’s daughters to run away. On November 10, 1912, a white mob of “scores of citizens” responded by finding the two black men and chasing them into the woods. When the men were cornered, they exchanged gunfire with the posse, reportedly killing two members of the mob. When they could no longer defend themselves, the two black men fled to an abandoned cabin. One of the men escaped the cabin. The other man, Mr. Berney, was trapped, shot, and burned to death inside the cabin. 12 Photos by Ozier Muhammad Mr. Berney was one of 13 known lynching victims who were killed in Elmore County, Alabama, between 1895 and 1915. No one was held accountable for this tragic violence. 13 Elizabeth Lawrence, an older black woman, was lynched by a white mob in Birmingham, Alabama, on July 5, 1933. Earlier that day, Ms. Lawrence was walking home when she was ap- proached by a group of white children who threw rocks at her. In response, she verbally reprimanded the children. They re- ported her reprimand to their parents, who spread the word that a black woman had dared to rebuke white children. Later that night, an angry mob went to Ms. Lawrence’s home, seized her, and lynched her. Her home was burned to the ground. When her son, Alexander, attempted to file a com- plaint with the sheriff and sought the arrest of his mother’s murderers, the mob reorganized and pursued him. He fled to Boston, leaving the South as a refugee from racial terror. 14 Alabama State University Professor Derryn Moten reflects on the history and legacy of lynching at an EJI community remembrance event where he joined other community mem- bers to collect soil at a lynching site. Participants in EJI’s com- munity remembrance project are asked to record or write reflections about their experiences, which are cataloged and stored by EJI. Photo by Ozier Muhammad 15 Josephine McCall attends a community meeting at EJI with her daughter. When Mrs. McCall was a young child, her father, Elmore Bolling, was lynched in Lowndes County, Alabama. A successful black businessman, Mr. Bolling was targeted by white residents who resented his economic success. He was murdered in Lowndes- boro on December 4, 1947. He was 39 years old. 16 Photo by Ozier Muhammad In 1910, a black man named Bush Withers was lynched in Sanford, Alabama. Mr. Withers was imprisoned at a convict leasing camp where horrific conditions and abuse were widespread. Despite the horrors of convict leasing, which abused thousands of people in a brutal system historians have called “worse than slavery,” Mr. Withers was regarded as a faithful employee and “water boy” in the prison camp. One day he went to a nearby farm to get water as he regularly did, and was later accused of criminally assaulting the farmer’s daughter. Mr. Withers insisted he was innocent, but the mere allegation was enough. Eventually a white mob formed and brought Mr. Withers to a prominent site in Sanford where, as he begged for his life and in- sisted he had done nothing wrong, Mr. Withers was tied to a stake, burned alive, and then shot to death. The gruesome lynching was carried out in front of 400 spectators. Local newspapers praised the conduct of the mob as “orderly.” Public spectacle lynchings like the murder of Mr. With- ers were common in the American South. Large crowds of white people, often numbering in the thou- sands, gathered to witness pre-planned killings that often featured prolonged torture, mutilation, dismem- berment, and/or burning of the victim. Many were car- nival-like events, with vendors selling food and spectators collecting body parts and posing for photo- graphs that were made into postcards and widely dis- tributed through the U.S. Mail. 17 EJI is building a national memorial in Montgomery, Alabama, to honor the victims of racial terror and lynching. Designed with MASS Design Group, the site will allow visitors from all over the world to engage in deep reflection about America’s history of racial injustice. 18 In December 2015, faith leaders from around the country joined EJI to partner with us on our community remembrance project. Leaders vis- ited the site of our planned national memorial to lynching victims to pray and reflect on the importance of confronting racial injustice. 19 In partnership with Local Projects, EJI is building a museum in Montgomery that will open in the next year. Titled From Enslavement to Mass Incarceration, the museum will engage visitors in an intensive and interactive experience that con- fronts the history of racial injustice in America and examines slavery, lynching, segregation, and mass incarceration. 20 In 1893, a white mob stormed the jail in Carrollton, Alabama, and lynched Paul Hill, Paul Archer, Will Archer, Emma Fair, and Ed Guyton, four black men and a black woman who had been accused of setting a fire that destroyed a mill and gin house. They did not resist when arrested, insisting that they were innocent and would be cleared quickly. The mob entered the jail with no resistance from law enforce- ment and slaughtered all five victims in a hail of gunfire. As the great anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells wrote in her investigation of the lynching, the unarmed black people “in their bolted prison cells could do nothing but suffer and die.” 21 EJI has a project to erect markers at lynching sites around the country. In Decem- ber 2015, the first lynching marker was erected in Brighton, Alabama, to com- memorate the death of William Miller, who was lynched for organizing African American coal miners in 1908. Community leaders gathered for the dedication, where EJI also awarded $6000 in college scholarships to area high school students. 22 EJI plans to dedicate hundreds of additional markers in the coming years. 23 EJI and many Americans believe that more truthful discourse and re- flection on our history of racial in- justice is essential for us to achieve racial equity and justice for all. Confronting the legacy of lynching is critical to ad- vancing this con- versation. EJI Photo Participants engage in dis- cussion and reflection at a community meeting at EJI on the lynching remem- brance project. EJI plans to host multiple community meetings in the coming year. 24 Photos by Ozier Muhammad We invite you to support EJI’s racial justice work by participating in our community remembrance project, visiting EJI for one of our educational programs, or providing financial support for our efforts. Please visit www.eji.org for more information. Equal Justice Initiative 122 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 334.269.1803 www.eji.org © 2016 Equal Justice Initiative, except as otherwise provided. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced, modified, offered for sale, or distributed without the express prior written permission of Equal Justice Initiative (EJI). EJI is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Resolution Decision Presenters: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Title: Recognition of Liberation Day as a City Holiday Background: Council created an ad-hoc blue ribbon commission on May 2, 2016 to address the questions and concerns brought before council regarding race, memorials and public spaces in Charlottesville. A number of recommendations were made based on the charge from City Council. One recommendation was the designation of March 3 as either Freedom or Liberation Day. Discussion: Union forces occupied Charlottesville from March 3-March 6, 1865. Encyclopedia Virginia says of the occupation “In February 1865, Sheridan's men rode south from Winchester with orders to destroy railroads and possibly take Lynchburg. They arrived in Charlottesville on March 3, and there were met by a delegation of town and university officials, who asked for protection. Union troopers burned a nearby woolen mills but, apart from widespread foraging and some looting, left the town and college intact. In the meantime, many of the area's African Americans, including at least one enslaved directly by the University of Virginia, used the Union occupation to escape their enslavement.” UVA magazine reported in 2015 “Wherever Union troops went, large numbers of African Americans escaped to freedom. Scholars have called this phenomenon “self-emancipation,” while Gallagher, for one, has emphasized the importance of the Union army in making such escapes even possible.” (Dr. Gary Gallagher spoke to the Blue Ribbon Commission to provide historical context for their work.) Vice Mayor Bellamy read a proclamation into the record on February 6, 2017. This item returns to Council so that a vote may be recorded to document the decision that Liberation Day will be recognized by the City of Charlottesville in future years. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The blue ribbon commission reflects the City’s vision to be a “Community of Mutual Respect.” This also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Foster Strong Connections, and the initiative to respect and nourish diversity. Budgetary Impact No budgetary impact has been discussed at this time. If Council sponsored events to commemorate Liberation Day, or created an additional holiday for City of Charlottesville employees, additional funding would be required from the City Council Strategic Initiatives account. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution without creating an additional City of Charlottesville Holiday where offices would be closed. Alternatives: Council may elect to not pass a resolution at this time. Council may choose to appropriate funds for a celebration of Liberation day on March 3, 2018. Council may elect to consider the creation of an additional City of Charlottesville holiday where offices would be closed. Attachments: Resolution RESOLUTION WHEREAS more than half of the population of Charlottesville and of Albemarle County at the time of the Civil War was enslaved; and WHEREAS this historical fact remained little-known until the recent salutary work of the Charlottesville Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Monuments, and Public Spaces, which promoted public knowledge of this important aspect of the history of our City and county; and WHEREAS the City of Charlottesville endeavors to “change the narrative on race” by recognizing and celebrating African American history as an important constituent of the City’s collective history; and WHEREAS 14,000 members of our community, having struggled for generations in bondage, began to be freed on March the 3rd, 1865, owing to the arrival of Union forces under the command of Generals Custer and Sheridan, who enforced the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation; and WHEREAS the values of freedom and justice are universal, and are thus rightly celebrated by everyone; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by declaration of the Charlottesville City Council, that March the 3rd shall henceforth be officially recognized by the City, and celebrated as “Liberation Day.” This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 21, 2017 Action Required: Direction from Council Presenters: Mike Murphy, Assistant City Manager Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Title: Vinegar Hill Monument funding consideration Background: Council created an ad-hoc blue ribbon commission on May 2, 2016 to address the questions and concerns brought before council regarding race, memorials and public spaces in Charlottesville. A number of recommendations were made based on the charge from City Council. One recommendation was that City Council provide financial assistance for the fabrication and installation of the Vinegar Hill Monument, as designed. Discussion: The Vinegar Hill Monument has been designed by internationally-recognized artist, Melvin Edwards. Efforts to raise the approximately $300,000 have experienced little success. When the monument was initially proposed there was an expectation that the project would be funded through private donations and grants. The monument has been planned for the grounds of the Jefferson School. There have been some recent discussions that ask whether the creation of a Vinegar Hill Park on the Downtown Mall would include a monument as a public art element. Planning is underway for Vinegar Hill Park and the area is slated for significant commercial development project. Staff does not feel engagement and planning have advanced to a stage where we can comment on a Downtown Mall location of the monument. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The blue ribbon commission reflects the City’s vision to be a “Community of Mutual Respect.” This also aligns with Strategic Plan Goal 5: Foster Strong Connections, and the initiative to respect and nourish diversity. Budgetary Impact Budget impact will be determined by the Council direction and/or action. Recommendation: Staff requests Council direction on whether any further action or funding consideration is required. This page intentionally left blank.