CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, November 6, 2017 5:30 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (Consideration of sale of City-owned property on 2nd St. SE; discuss acquisition of real property on w. Main St. for a public purpose; City Manager annual performance evaluation follow-up; Boards & Commissions) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL AWARDS/RECOGNITIONS Poppy Proclamation (Veterans Day) ANNOUNCEMENTS Legislative Agenda overview 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 October 16, 2017 b. APPROPRIATION: State Of Good Repair (SGR) for bridge repairs –$10,079,968.00 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Local Contributions for Crisis Intervention Team - $105,910 (1st of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: Runaway Emergency Shelter Program Grant – $209,444 (1st of 2nd reading) e. RESOLUTION: Reprogramming of Existing Capital Funding for Ambulance Purchase – $175,000 (1st of 1 reading) f. RESOLUTION: Extension of the Affordable Housing Fund Grant Agreement with Piedmont Housing Alliance’s Down Payment Assistance Program (1st of 1 reading) g. ORDINANCE: Proposed Changes to Dog License (1st of 2 readings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING/ Water Street Parking Garage Parking Spaces Lease (1st of 2 readings) – 15 mins ORDINANCE*: 3. PUBLIC HEARING/ Dominion Utility Easement at Ragged Mountain Reservoir (1st of 2 readings) – 10 mins ORDINANCE*: 4. REPORT: FY 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan and City Council 2017 Workplan – 30 mins 5. ORDINANCE*: Park Street Planned Unit Development Rezoning Request (1st of 2 readings) – 30 mins 6. RESOLUTION*: 901 River Road Special Use Permit for self-storage company (1st of 1 reading) – 20 mins 7. RESOLUTION*: Downtown Parks Master Plan Review of Scope (1st of 1 reading) – 30 mins OTHER BUSINESS MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC *ACTION NEEDED 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: October 16, 2017 Action Required: Public Hearing and Appropriation of Funds Presenter: Marty Silman, City Engineer Staff Contacts: Marty Silman, City Engineer Tony Edwards, Neighborhood Development Services Manager Title: State Of Good Repair (SGR) for bridge repairs – Appropriation of $10,079,968.00 Background: The Code of Virginia authorizes the Commonwealth Transportation Board to use funds allocated to state of good repair purposes for reconstruction of structurally deficient locally owned bridges. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the prioritization process and methodology for selecting SGR Bridge projects at their June 14, 2016 meeting. The State of Good Repair Program was planned to begin in FY2021. However, based on a more positive revenue outlook, VDOT began using funding through the State of Good Repair Program beginning this year (starting in FY2017). The City submitted applications for each of our structurally deficient bridges and was fortunate to receive 100% funding for 4 of our structurally deficient bridges. Discussion: Staff is requesting that $10,079,968.00 be appropriated to new project accounts for each of the 4 bridges that were awarded funding. The appropriation is needed to allocate the state funding that will be received on a reimbursement basis. The breakdown for the projects that were awarded the SGR funding is as follows:  Route 250 Bypass over Route 29 Business - $3,847,554  Route 250 Bypass over Rugby Ave - $2,488,292  Route 250 Bypass over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $1,303,496  Melbourne Road over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $2,440,626 Repairs are bridge specific, but range from minor work to address erosion around bridge abutments to full bridge deck replacement. In general, repairs consist of various items such as bearings, anchor bolts, beams, painting, railing, concrete, etc. Each of the bridges awarded for funding are classified as structurally deficient for one or more items (deck, superstructure or substructure). It should be noted that while these bridges may be classified as structurally deficient they are adequate to support the required loads of today’s vehicles. Structurally deficient is classified as a score of 0-4 out of 10. None of the bridges have a rating below 4. Following the improvements, each bridge should be off the structurally deficient list with a minimum rating of 5 or greater. Community Engagement: A Public Hearing will be held on October 16, 2017 to provide the opportunity for community input. In addition, we will issue notices and project updates to keep road users and the surrounding residents apprised of the project status and traffic impacts. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: Approval of this agenda item will help meet the City’s commitment to create “a connected community” by improving our existing transportation infrastructure. Budgetary Impact: There is no match requirement as the grant applications awarded are based on 100% funding. Acceptance of this funding will allow existing bridge repair funding to be used on other structures. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of appropriation and creation of a new project number/account for each bridge. Alternatives: N/A Attachment: Appropriation APPROPRIATION State of Good Repair Program - $10,079,968.00 WHEREAS, a total of $10,079,968.00 in state funds for the State of Good Repair Program requires appropriation; WHEREAS, a total of $0.00 in matching city funds are for the State of Good Repair requires transferring; WHEREAS, the total appropriation will be allocated to the following projects (and associated project numbers listed below): - Route 250 Bypass over Route 29 Business - $3,847,554 - Route 250 Bypass over Rugby Ave - $2,488,292 - Route 250 Bypass over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $1,303,496 - Melbourne Road over Norfolk Southern Railroad - $2,440,626 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 $ 3,847,554 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00953 G/L Account: 430110 $ 2,488,292 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00954 G/L Account: 430110 $ 1,303,496 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00955 G/L Account: 430110 $ 2,440,626 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00956 G/L Account: 430110 Expenditures $ 3,847,554 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00953 G/L Account: 599999 $ 2,488,292 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00954 G/L Account: 599999 $ 1,303,496 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00955 G/L Account: 599999 $ 2,440,626 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00956 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Appropriation of ongoing funding for Crisis Intervention Team Presenter: Thomas McKean, Police Department Staff Contacts: Thomas McKean, Police Department Thomas Von Hemert, Jefferson Area C.I.T. Coordinator Title: Local Contributions for Crisis Intervention Team - $105,910 Background: The Thomas Jefferson Area Crisis Intervention Team (C.I.T) Program provides regular training courses for Law Enforcement and other agencies, both local and from throughout the state. These week long training sessions for Police Officers, along with other training sessions for security guards, dispatchers, and others are provided regularly over the course of each year led by C.I.T. Coordinator, Thomas von Hemert. This training serves to keep Agencies equipped with C.I.T. trained officers in order to better service those in mental crisis. Funding for this training is provided from multiple agencies on a previously agreed upon cost. The City of Charlottesville Police Department receives funding to support the C.I.T. Program in the amount of $105,910. The funding is from several sources that include localities and agencies within the Thomas Jefferson Area C.I.T. region. Discussion: Region 10 will provide pass through funds from The Department of Behavioral Health and Disability Services (DBHDS) in the amount of $53,700, and participating surrounding localities will provide $34,710. Additional funding will be provided for ongoing training, consultation, and assistance to C.I.T. programs in the following manner per fiscal year: Albemarle County Police Department $2,500 City of Charlottesville Police Department $2,500 University of Virginia Police Department $2,500 Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail $2,500 Region Ten $2,500 Central Virginia Regional Jail $2,500 CAC Foundation $2,500 Total contributions $17,500 Further additional income may be received from outside jurisdiction agencies who attend training in the Thomas Jefferson Training Area. These are reimbursed through The Department of Criminal Justice Services, at $500 per person and received on a case by case basis as the training occurs. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: Appropriation of this item aligns with Council’s visions by providing funding to aid the Thomas Jefferson Crisis Intervention Team Program and the Charlottesville Police Department in delivering optimal C.I.T. services to our City as a Smart, Citizen-Focused Government. It supports our Mission of providing services that promote exceptional quality of life for all in our community by providing important quality services to those in need of mental health assistance and safety. This appropriation also supports Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan: A Healthy and Safe City. The C.I.T. program provides education and training to members of the community who have frequent interaction with those in need of mental health assistance. These people include but are not limited to, police officers, dispatchers, corrections officers, and fire department personnel. C.I.T. encourages safer and more effective interaction between care providers and those in need, making those interactions and the community more equitable and safer for all. The Jefferson Area CIT program also embraces Objective 5.4 Foster Effective Community Engagement by involving all aspects of the mental health processes and making them more efficient and safer. C.I.T. facilitates and fosters relationships between Region 10, mental health providers, law enforcement, local hospitals, jails, and many others to ensure that those in need of mental health services can obtain them as safely and efficiently as possible. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund. The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: The alternative is to not approve this project to the detriment of increasing much needed mental health programs. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION $105,910 Local Agency Contributions for Crisis Intervention Team WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Thomas Jefferson Crisis Intervention Team and the Charlottesville Police Department, receives from local agencies $105,910 per fiscal year; WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Thomas Jefferson Crisis Intervention Team and the Charlottesville Police Department, receives from other local agencies, funding to support Crisis Intervention Team programs; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the lump sum of $105,910, received from local Agencies is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues: $105,910 $88,410 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3101003000 G/L Account: 432080 $17,500 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3101003000 G/L Account: 434410 Expenditures: $105,910 $79,825 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3101003000 G/L Account: 519999 $26,085 Fund: 209 Cost Center: 3101003000 G/L Account: 599999 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of funding by the participating agencies listed above. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Requested: Appropriation Presenter: Rory Carpenter, Juvenile Justice Coordinator Staff Contacts: Rory Carpenter, Juvenile Justice Coordinator Kaki Dimock, Director of Human Services Title: Runaway Emergency Shelter Program Grant - $209,444 Background: The Human Services Department, in partnership with ReadyKids, applied for and received a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families in the amount of $200,000 in federal funds and $22,222 in local matching funds. The local match will be met with a transfer of $9,444 from the Human Services Department for a total appropriation of $209,444. An in-kind match of $12,778 from ReadyKids, to provide Runaway Emergency Shelter Program (R.E.S.P.) services will be applied to the grant as well. This is the seventh grant year of the partnership. Discussion: The funds support services that provide emergency shelter, counseling and after care services for youth in crisis for the purpose of keeping them safe and off the streets, with a goal of reunification with family. Funded services will include: emergency shelter available 24 hours per day, 7days a week; individual and family counseling to help resolve conflict and develop new communication skills to facilitate reunification with the family; and additional support services that help youth build meaningful connections with their community and encourage positive youth development. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The Runaway Emergency Shelter Program grant aligns with the goals and objectives of the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan - Goal 2: A Healthy and Safe City Objective 2.3: Improve community health and safety outcomes by connecting residents with effective resources. The Human Service Department’s programs, including the Runaway Emergency Shelter Program, provide residential and community based services that prevent delinquency and promote the healthy development of youth. Community Engagement: In order to increase prevention services, R.E.S.P. staff conduct extensive outreach efforts, particularly in area schools reaching out to youth through a variety of activities including presentations to health classes and tablings during lunch. Budgetary Impact: There is no impact to the General Fund. There is a local match that the Human Service’s Department and ReadyKids will provide (cash match of $9,444 – Human Services Fund and in- kind match $12,778 – ReadyKids). This grant will be appropriated into a grants fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds. Alternatives: If the funds are not appropriated, the grant would not be received and the Runaway Emergency Shelter Program services would not be provided. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Runaway Emergency Shelter Program $209,444 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been awarded $200,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families with cash match of $9,444 provided by the Human Services Fund and in-kind match of $12,778 provided by ReadyKids; WHEREAS, the funds will be used to operate the Runaway Emergency Shelter Program through a partnership between the Human Services Department and ReadyKids. The grant award covers the period from September 30, 2017 through September 29, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $209,444 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $209,444 $200,000 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900293 G/L Account: 431110 $ 9,444 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900293 G/L Account: 498010 Expenditures - $209,444 $ 69,948 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900293 G/L Account: 519999 $115,000 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900293 G/L Account: 530010 $ 24,496 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900293 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer - $9,444 $ 9,444 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 3413003000 G/L Account: 561211 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $200,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Approval of Resolution Presenter: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief - Operations, Charlottesville Fire Department Staff Contacts: Mike Rogers, Deputy Chief - Operations, Charlottesville Fire Department Title: Reprogramming of Existing Capital Funding for Ambulance Purchase, $175,000. Background: The adopted FY17 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) included funding for the purchase of one (1) replacement tractor drawn aerial ladder for a total cost of $1,599,366. The tractor drawn aerial has been purchased and is being placed in service but several factors contributed to a budget savings in the amount of $180,794. The Fire Department is requesting to reprogram $175,000 of the remaining funds to support the purchase of a new fire department owned ambulance to aid in the delivery of EMS transport service, and support the on-going Emergency Medical Service System Improvement Strategy (EMS SIS). Discussion: On September 5, 2017 the EMS SIS, the new memorandum of understanding between the Charlottesville Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) and Charlottesville Fire Department (CFD) went into effect. On September 7, 2017 CFD began running a CARS -owned ambulance out of the Ridge Street Fire Station staffed with two CFD personnel from 7am-7pm each weekday. These personnel are currently utilizing an ambulance that is borrowed from CARS and is not owned in part or whole by the City. On January 1st, 2018, a second ambulance is slated to go in-service at the Fontaine Fire Station as a 24 hour unit, 7 day per week. CFD’s current utilization of CARS ambulances affects their reserve fleet availability when they have units out of service due to ongoing fleet maintenance challenges. The planned implementation of the 24-hour ambulance at the Fontaine Station will only further exacerbate the capabilities of the current CARS fleet. The re-programming of these funds to procure a CFD owned ambulance with help to alleviate this stress on the CARS ambulance fleet. As part of the City’s FY 2019-2023 CIP process, the Fire Department will be requesting funds to purchase four (4) total ambulances, between FY 2019 and FY 2021. Each of these units will cost $342, 452. These requested units will require a full complement of equipment that accounts for the additional $167,452 above this initial unit cost of $175,000. We will be outfitting this initial unit with equipment already purchased for the CARS units we are currently utilizing. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Vision Statement - America’s Healthiest City, “Our emergency response system is among the nation’s best.” CFD would be engaging this vision by starting to build a safer, more sustainable and more reliable tiered transport foundation for the City’s EMS SIS. Strategic Plan – • Goal 2, A Healthy and Safe City, 2.1 Reduce the adverse impact from sudden injury and illness and the effects of chronic disease. • Goal 5, Well-managed and Responsive Organization, 5.1 Integrate effective business practices and strong fiscal policies. Community Engagement: The City’s EMS System Improvement Strategy has been presented to the community over the past several months, via a Council Work Session on June 15, 2017, Public Hearing on July 17, 2017, and Council meetings on August 21, 2017 and September 5, 2017. Budgetary Impact: This request has no impact on the General Fund. This request would reprogram previously appropriated funds in the amount of $175,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this resolution to re-program previously appropriated CIP funds for this purpose. Currently, the Fire Department has the opportunity to purchase one of the ambulances that will be needed to support the start-up and build out of the City’s EMS SIS. Alternatives: If the department is unable to have these funds re-appropriated to support the purchase of a City owned ambulance, CFD will need to continue to rely entirely on CARS ambulances to deliver service. This will continue to impact CARS reserve fleet for it members to staff should they have units out of service. This will also make the department fully reliant on the use of future CIP funding for the acquisition of City owned ambulances. Attachments: N/A RESOLUTION Reprogramming of Existing Capital Funding for Ambulance Purchase - $175,000 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $175,000 is hereby transferred in the following manner: Transfer From $175,000 Fund: 426 WBS Element: P-00920 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To $175,000 Fund: 426 WBS Element: P-00957 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Resolution Staff Contacts: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Presenter: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Title: Extension of the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Grant Agreement with Piedmont Housing Alliance’s Down Payment Assistance Program for the Orangedale and Prospect Neighborhood Background: On May 18, 2015, City Council approved funding for Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) to implement an Orangedale & Prospect Neighborhood Down Payment Assistance Program benefitting households with incomes at or below 80% AMI. A total of $181,125 was approved and included $110,000 in down payment assistance loans, $62,500 in home repair grants (to be used in conjunction with down payment assistance to make repairs) and $8,625 in administrative expenses to cover PHA staff and related costs. In July 2016, PHA submitted a request to amend the program:  Expand the down payment assistance target area from the Orangedale and Prospect Neighborhood to the entire City of Charlottesville;  Impose a maximum sales price of $200,000;  Eliminate the minimum housing ratio and establish maximum debt ratios; AND  Reduce the Deed of Trust security from 15 years to ten years. City Council approved these amendments and a grant extension on September 19, 2016. The current grant extension expired on July 30, 2017. PHA is requesting another extension of the grant in order to meet program goals. Discussion: Since July 2016, PHA has provided down payment assistance to three homebuyers to purchase homes in the 10th and Page, Orangedale and Prospect, and North Berkshire neighborhoods; and provided home repair grants to two homebuyers. This activity has left a balance of $22,060 in down payment assistance and $37,500 in home repair grant funds, enough money to provide down payment assistance to an additional one or two households, and three additional home repair grants. In an effort to expand program participation, PHA has undertaken a number of community outreach activities including: direct mailings; a news release, attending neighborhood association meetings, and working with lenders and home sellers. In January of this year, PHA relocated their financial education classes to the Carver Recreation Center as a strategy to increase attendance via a more central location. However, two primary obstacles have been identified which inhibit potential homebuyers from realizing their dreams of homeownership. The first is a lack of affordable housing stock for sale located within city limits. The second is a lack of financial stability and mortgage-readiness. Many lower-income families face significant credit and money management issues that prevent them from qualifying for mortgages. These issues can be overcome through education and effective household budgeting, but the process takes time. Acknowledging the challenges many families face when working towards homeownership, and given the PHA’s success over the past year and their ongoing efforts to promote the program, staff recommends City Council approve a 12 month extension of the grant agreement. Community Engagement: In addition to the activities discussed above, PHA has also posted program flyers in the Orangedale and Prospect neighborhood; held three neighborhood meetings and four “Building Towards Home Ownership” workshops; participated in the Greenstone on 5th Community Days and Community Clean-Up Day; participated in meetings with CALM and the NAACP to promote the program; identified properties for sale; and posted special yard signs on those properties. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda items aligns directly with Strategic Goal 1.3: Increase affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: No additional funds are being requested, so there is no impact on the budget. Recommendation Staff recommends approving an extension of the program grant through July 30, 2018. Alternatives: City Council could decide to not approve an extension of the grant agreement and ask PHA to return the remaining funds to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. Attachments: PHA Request Resolution RESOLUTION Extension of Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Agreement with the Piedmont Housing Alliance for the Down Payment Assistance Program for the Orangedale and Prospect Neighborhood WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville awarded for a pilot demonstration program to Piedmont Housing Alliance for the purpose of providing down payment assistance and home repairs to potential homebuyers within the Orangedale and Prospect Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville approved an extension of the program grant agreement through July 30, 2017; and WHEREAS, between December 2016 and September 2017, Piedmont Housing Alliance successfully used 67 percent of the program funds to provide down payment assistance and home repair grants to four homebuyers; NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the grant agreement for the Piedmont Housing Alliance’s Down Payment Assistance Program for the Orangedale and Prospect neighborhood be extended through July 30, 2018. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Requested: Approve changes to dog license fees Presenter: Jason A. Vandever, Treasurer Staff Contacts: Jason A. Vandever, Treasurer Chad Everette Thorne, Chief Deputy Treasurer Title: Proposed Changes to Dog License: Implement Lifetime Dog Tag Fee Background: Virginia Code § 3.2-6528 “Amount of License Tax” stipulates that localities shall impose, by ordinance, a license tax on the ownership of dogs within their jurisdiction. Earlier this year, Virginia Code § 3.2-6528 was amended to permit localities to enact, by ordinance, a lifetime license tax on dog ownership. New language within the statute stipulates the dog license tax shall not be more than $10 per year for an annual license, and no more than $50 for a lifetime license. The Treasurer’s Office currently issues dog licenses annually to residents who own or keep dogs at least four (4) months old in the City of Charlottesville. Licenses issued are for one (1) or three (3) years based on a calendar year of January 1 – December 31; and cost: (a) For an unsexed female or male dog, $4.00 per year (b) For any dog not spayed or neutered, $10.00 per year (c) For a kennel of twenty (20) dogs, $20.00 per year (d) For a kennel of fifty (50) dogs, $35.00 per year Discussion: Many localities in Virginia are considering implementation of the relatively new lifetime dog license. At present, Hanover and Stafford Counties have already implemented the lifetime tag. It is also being considered in Orange County. Chesterfield and Accomack have expressed an interest in the possibility of a lifetime dog license. The proposed fee change would be to implement a lifetime dog license fee of $10 and eliminate the annual tag requirement, saving residents the cost and hassle on the annual tag renewal process. Fees for kennel dogs will remain the same. The replacement fees for lost or stolen licenses will be $1. The implementation of a $10 lifetime dog license tax could: • Reduce the tax burden for dog owners over the course of their dog’s lifespan • Present a convenience for dog owners by eliminating the renewal requirements of dog licenses • Limit the processing and supply costs of issuing license renewals for the Treasurer’s Office Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This supports the City’s Strategic Goal 5: A Well-Managed and Responsive Organization; Objective 5.1: Integrate effective business practices and strong fiscal policies and 5.3 Provide responsive customer service. Community Engagement: CASPCA has been contacted and sees no issue with the proposed changes. Budgetary Impact: Annual dog license revenues have been fluctuating between $11,000 – $15,000 per year recently. It is expected that the first year’s implementation will result in a slight revenue increase since many owners who would have purchased a $4 one year dog tag will now purchase a $10 lifetime dog tag. Over the next several years, revenue is expected to decrease as renewals are phased out and only new dogs will be added on an annual basis. The decline in revenue will be offset slightly by a decrease in program administration costs. Recommendation: Replace the annual license tax with a lifetime dog license costing $10. These changes will go into effect with the tag year starting on January 1, 2018. Alternatives: Continue with current dog license fee structure. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING SECTION 4-37 OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 4 (ANIMALS AND FOWL) TO ESTABLISH A LIFETIME DOG LICENSE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that Section 4-37 of Article III of Chapter 4 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, are hereby amended and reordained, as follows: ARTICLE III. DOGS GENERALLY Sec. 4-36. License—Required. It shall be unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for any person to own or keep within the city any dog four (4) months old or older for which a current license has not been secured as provided by the laws of the state. Sec. 4-37. Same—Year and tax. (a) Dog licenses shall run from January 1 to December 31, inclusive, and The dog license tax, payable at the office of the city treasurer, shall be as follows: (1) For an unsexed female or male dog, four dollars ($4.00). For any individual dog, a lifetime license tax of ten dollars ($10.00). (2) For any dog not spayed or neutered, ten dollars ($10.00). (3) For a kennel of twenty (20) dogs, twenty dollars ($20.00) annually. (4) For a kennel of fifty (50) dogs, thirty-five dollars ($35.00) annually. (b) The lifetime license shall be valid only as long as the animal’s owner resides in the City of Charlottesville and the dog’s rabies vaccination is kept current. A fee of one dollar ($1.00) will be charged for replacement of a dog license that is lost or stolen. The license for a kennel shall run from January 1 to December 31, inclusive. A dog license may be purchased for a three year period, and the license tax, payable at the office of the city treasurer, shall be twelve dollars ($12.00) for an unsexed female or male dog, or thirty dollars ($30.00) for any dog not spayed or neutered. The three year license shall expire on December 31 of the third calendar year, or on the last day of the month in which the rabies vaccination of the licensed animal expires, whichever occurs first. (c) No license tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person or that is trained and serves as a hearing dog for a deaf or hearing impaired person or that is trained and serves as a service dog for a mobility-impaired person. As used in this section, "hearing dog" means a dog trained to alert its owner by touch to sounds of danger and sounds to which the owner should respond, and "service dog" means a dog trained to accompany its owner for the purpose of carrying items, retrieving objects, pulling a wheelchair or other such activities of service or support. State Law reference— Similar provisions Virginia Code §§ 3.2-6527 – 3.2-6536 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Actions Required: Yes (Opening of Bids and First Reading of Lease Ordinance) Staff Presenter: Craig Brown, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Craig Brown, City Attorney Chris Engel, Director of Economic Development Title: Proposed Lease of 75 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 the hotel 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, City Council adopted a Resolution on September 5, 2017 authorizing staff to advertise a 40-year lease of 75 designated parking spaces in the WSPG. That advertisement, inviting written bids for the parking space lease, was published in The Daily Progress once a week for two successive weeks, as required by law. A copy of the proposed ordinance and Parking Space Lease, which were referenced in the legal advertisement, are attached to this agenda memo. 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. Discussion: Virginia Code §15.2-2102 describes the process for receiving bids and awarding the lease: The presiding officer shall read aloud, or cause to be read aloud, a brief summary of each of the bids that have been received, for public information, and shall then inquire if any further bids are offered. If further bids are offered, they shall be received. The presiding officer shall thereafter declare the bidding closed. The presiding officer shall receive recommendations from the staff relative to any bids received in advance and staff's recommendations, if any, on any bids received at the advertised council meeting. If one or more bids have been submitted, City Council is required to hold a public hearing on the lease of the parking spaces, prior to deciding whether to proceed with the proposed ordinance. 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, which reason shall be expressed in the body of the subsequent ordinance granting the . . . lease”. The City also has the right to reject any and all bids received. As of the date of this memo no bids for the lease of the 75 parking spaces have been received. It is not mandatory that City Council have a first reading on the ordinance at the November 6 meeting, although it may choose to do so. State law provides that City Council has the option to conduct additional investigation prior to moving the ordinance forward for a second reading. 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 advertised for this City Council meeting, to be held following the submission of all bids. 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 that Council hold a public hearing on any bids received, and if appropriate move and second the attached ordinance on first reading. Alternatives: City Council can reject all bids submitted for the lease, either before or after conducting a public hearing. If all bids are rejected the City must re-advertise prior to any subsequent award of the lease. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Parking Space Lease AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES IN THE WATER STREET PARKING GARAGE WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville seeks to lease seventy-five (75) parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage for a term of forty (40) years; and, WHEREAS, Virginia law requires that the City advertise and receive bids on any lease of City-owned real property that is devoted to a public use and that will have a term in excess of five years; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2100 et seq., this ordinance was duly advertised for the purpose of receiving bids; and, WHEREAS, a bid has been received in response to the advertisement, and in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-1800 (B) a public hearing was held on November 6, 2017 to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed long term lease of City-owned parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage; and, WHEREAS, the bid submitted by ________________________________________ has now been selected by the City Council to receive the Parking Space Lease. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Parking Space Lease, in substantially the same form as attached hereto, with ___________________________ ___________________ as Lessee, for the leasing of seventy-five (75) Parking Spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage as described in the attached Lease. Said Parking Space Lease shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to execution by the City Manager. PARKING SPACE LEASE This PARKING SPACE LEASE (“Lease”) is made this ____ day of ____________, 2017, by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, a Virginia municipal corporation, referred to herein as “City” or “Lessor”, and ______________________________, a ____________________, referred to herein as “Lessee”. The City is the owner of approximately 629 condominium units designated and used as parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage Condominium, located in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, on Water Street, between Second Street S.E. and Fourth Street S.E. The purpose of this Lease is to lease, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease, seventy- five (75) of those City-owned parking spaces on a long term basis to Lessee, for the purpose of parking by Lessee’s _______________________________________. Therefore, the parties agree as follows: 1. Lease of Parking Spaces. The City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases from the City, the following seventy-five (75) Parking Spaces located on the top floor of the Water Street Parking Garage: • Parking Spaces designated P-884 through P-897; • Parking Spaces designated P-915 through P-964; and, • Parking Spaces designated P-1009 through P-1019. These Parking Spaces are depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto, entitled “Water Street Parking Garage Expansion – Roof Parking”. As an incident to the leasing of such Parking Spaces, Lessee is granted the right to use the area of the Condominium in which the Parking Spaces are located and to use such other areas of the Condominium as are reasonably necessary for ingress and egress to the Parking Spaces and otherwise in such manner as is consistent with appropriate parking of motor vehicles and the provisions of this Lease. Lessee shall also have the right to use the common elements and limited common elements specifically associated with the area in which the Parking Spaces are located, so long as such use does not inhibit or interfere with the proper use of common elements and limited common elements by other persons entitled to use thereof. 2. Term of Lease; Option to Extend. [Bidders should state the desired initial term of the lease, and the terms and conditions for an extension or renewal, if any. The entire term, including any extensions or renewals, cannot exceed forty (40) years. Bidders should also specify when the initial lease term begins, if the term of the lease will not begin when the lease is executed by both parties.] 3. Rent. [Bidders should propose the amount of rent payable to the Lessor for the 75 Parking Spaces during the term of the lease.] If the rent is a fixed amount payable in monthly installments, the rent will be due and payable on the first of the month in advance. Lessee will be billed for such rent by the City in advance of the first of the month when such rent is due. Such rent will be reduced by 5% if Lessee pays rent on all spaces for any calendar year on or before the January 1 of any calendar year at the rate of 12 times the rent billed for the monthly rent which would be due on such January 1. If any rent is not paid within 10 days after it is due, the City may impose a charge of 10% for late payment. If any check provided by Lessee for payment of rent or any other amounts due under this Lease is returned for any reason other than lack of endorsements, Lessee will be charged $50.00. Such late payment and returned check charges will be considered additional rent under this Lease. [If any bidder proposes rent in an amount other than a fixed monthly amount, the bidder should propose any necessary terms and conditions regarding calculation of the rent, billing, invoicing and payment.] 4. Access to Premises. [Bidders should state the days and hours that access to the 75 Parking Spaces is needed.] With the prior approval of the City, Lessee will be entitled to install signage and appropriate measures to limit access to the 75 Parking Spaces, and to insure that the spaces are reserved for Lessee’s exclusive use; provided, however, that Lessee shall not take any actions or install any improvements that will in any manner limit or restrict access to or use of any parking spaces in the Water Street parking Garage that are not the subject of this Lease. Nothing in this Lease shall be interpreted to preclude any person associated with the Lessee in any capacity from parking in other available parking spaces in the Water Street Parking Garage on the same terms, conditions and for the same fees as are applicable to members of the public at large. Notwithstanding Lessee’s installation of signage and measures to limit access to the Parking Spaces leased herein, Lessee shall ensure that the City and its agents, contractors and representatives continuously have access to the Parking Spaces for purposes of maintenance, upkeep, repairs and security. 5. Assistance with Problems. As appropriate and upon notice, the City or its agent will provide reasonable assistance to Lessee, without charge during any hours that the Water Street Parking Garage is otherwise open to the public, in obtaining access to the Parking Spaces in the event of any problems with access due to an access system failure. The obligation to provide assistance without charge does not apply when the loss of access is due to (a) damage caused by Lessee or any authorized user of the leased Parking Spaces, or (b) when assistance is rendered outside of normal business hours, under circumstances that would result in a charge against any other person using the Garage for parking. 6. Responsibility for Equipment, Maintenance and Repairs. Lessee will be responsible for maintaining, repairing or replacing any improvements installed pursuant to section (4), supra, except that the City will be responsible for the costs of all maintenance and repairs due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its employees, agents or contractors. As a member of the Water Street Parking Garage Condominium Association the City will be responsible for its pro rata share of the cost of maintaining, repairing, and keeping clean the other equipment, systems, structural components, lighting, doors, stairwells, elevators, and signs of the Condominium in accordance with good maintenance, repair and security practices, except that Lessee will be responsible for the costs of all maintenance, repairs and replacements due to the actions or inactions of Lessee or its ____________________________. 7. Risk of Loss; Insurance; Indemnification. Lessee acknowledges that the City does not maintain insurance for damage to vehicles caused by the actions of others or for damage caused by any reason other than its own negligence, or the negligence of its employees, agents, representatives or contractors, or as is covered by general liability insurance for parking garage facilities. The City will not have any responsibility for any damage caused to any vehicles parked in the Parking Spaces or within the Condominium except for losses covered by insurance maintained by the City, or for any loss caused by the City. Therefore, as among the City and the Lessee, Lessee will be responsible for any losses or claims of any persons using the Parking Spaces when the City has no responsibility for any such loss or damages. Lessee will, therefore, be responsible for maintaining its own insurance for such purposes. Any such insurance will name the City as additional insured as its interest may appear. The City and the Lessee will request of their respective insurers that they provide for waiver of subrogation as to the other parties to this Lease. Lessee will indemnify and hold the City harmless with respect to any costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and any damages arising from or incurred in connection with claims made by any employees, agents, invitees, and guests of Lessee, or any person using the Parking Spaces with Lessee’s consent, for which the City is not legally responsible; and the City, to the extent permitted by applicable law, will indemnity and hold the Lessee harmless with respect to any costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and any damages arising from or incurred in connection with claims made by any employees, agents, invitees, and guests of Hotel for which the City is solely legally responsible. 8. Quiet Enjoyment. Through the entire term of this Lease and for so long as the rent is paid to the City, but in no event for a period in excess of forty (40) years, Lessee shall peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the provisions of this Lease, the rights of ingress and egress to and from the Parking Spaces and the Condominium, and the use of the Parking Spaces, all without hindrance or interruption by the City or any other person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming by, through or under the City; subject, nevertheless, to the terms and conditions of this Lease. Lessee agrees to provide any estoppel certificate which may be requested by the City. 9. Use, Assignment and Sublease. The 75 Parking Spaces leased herein will be used by Lessee exclusively for: [Bidders should submit a description of how the Parking Spaces will be used, i.e., by employees, customers, guests, clients, etc] Lessee agrees and covenants that the Parking Spaces will not be used for any other purpose, nor leased or subleased to the public or to anyone not affiliated with Lessee or Lessee’s business. None of the rights of Lessee under this Lease may be assigned or sublet without the specific written approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, except that Lessee reserves the right to make the following assignment or sublease without the prior approval of the City: [Bidders should insert any circumstances where they wish to retain the unconditional right to assign or sublet this Lease.] No assignment or subletting will act to release Lessee from any of its obligations under this Lease without the express written consent of the City. 10. Default. With respect to Lessee, a default under this Lease will have occurred if: (a) Lessee fails to make any rent payment within 10 days after such payment is due; (b) Lessee fails to perform any other obligation under this Lease and such failure is not remedied within 30 days after being given notice by the City of such failure, or if such failure cannot be remedied in 30 days, remedial action is not commenced within such 30 days and diligently pursued to completion, except that no notice is required in the event of any use being made by Lessee of the Parking Spaces or the Condominium which might violate any applicable environmental law or might increase the cost of any fire and extended coverage insurance of the City; (c) Lessee has docketed against it any judgment in excess of $50,000 which is not released or is not bonded within 30 days after it is docketed; (d) Lessee makes any assignment for the benefit of creditors; or (e) Lessee files, or has filed against it, a petition under any insolvency or bankruptcy laws, which petition is not dismissed within 60 days after filing. If any such default occurs, the City may (i) in its sole discretion, perform such responsibility of Lessee; and/or (ii) declare the remaining amount of the rent for the term of the Lease due and payable, terminate this Lease immediately, enter upon and relet the Parking Spaces and hold Lessee liable for any deficiency in the amount of rent obtained upon such reletting. If the City terminates the Lease and declares the remaining rent due, it must make commercially reasonable efforts to rent some or all of the Parking Spaces, and the rent received or to be received from any re-letting which occurs will be credited against any amount due from Lessee with respect to such accelerated rent. Lessee will be responsible to the City for all costs incurred by the City, including attorney’s fees, if the City takes any actions with respect to any default hereunder that remains uncured upon the expiration of the applicable cure period, and all such costs will be considered additional rent under this Lease. With respect to the City, a default under this Lease will have occurred if it fails to perform any of their obligations under this Lease, and such failure continues for a period of 15 days after Lessee notifies the City in writing of such failure to perform. If any such default involves a responsibility for repair or maintenance, the City will have such additional reasonable time as may be necessary to undertake and to complete such repair or maintenance. If such a default occurs, Lessee may: (i) perform the obligation of the City under which it is in default and deduct the costs of such performance from any future rent which may be due under this Lease; or (ii), if such default unreasonably interferes with Lessee’s use of the Parking Spaces or the Condominium, terminate this Lease at a date no earlier than 30 days after giving such notice and no later than three months after giving such notice, in which case Lessee will have no further liability for rent under this Lease after such termination. The City will be responsible to Lessee for all costs incurred by Lessee, including attorney’s fees, if Lessee takes any actions with respect to any default hereunder that remains uncured upon the expiration of the applicable cure period, and all such costs may be deducted from rent due under this Lease. Waiver of or failure to take any action with respect to any default will not constitute a waiver of any subsequent or other default of the same or a different provision of this Lease. The rights of the parties to terminate this Lease and to take other actions in the event of default are in addition to any rights which such parties may otherwise have under applicable law and are subject to any provisions of applicable bankruptcy and insolvency laws. 11. Notice of Commencement of Term. [Bidders will specify the time when the term of the Lease will begin; the successful bidder will have no right under this Lease to use the Parking Spaces prior to the commencement of the Lease term.] 12. Destruction of the Condominium. In the event of the destruction of all or any part of the Condominium by fire, explosion, storm, the elements, or otherwise, through no fault of Lessee or its _______________, to such an extent that it becomes impracticable or unsafe for Lessee to use the Parking Spaces or the Condominium for their intended purposes, the term hereby created will, at the option of either party, upon notice to the other, be terminated as of the date of such damage, and the accrued rent will be paid up to the time of such damage. If the owners of the Condominium elect, in their discretion, to repair the Parking Spaces and the Condominium, and during the period of repair or rebuilding the Lessee is unable to use all or any portion of the Premises, the rent due will be reduced proportionately for such period, unless Lessee or any of its ___________________________ were responsible for the damage. 13. Condemnation. If all or any portion of the Parking Spaces or the Condominium is taken by condemnation by any entity other than the City, and if, after such taking, Lessee is unable to continue to use the Parking Spaces or the Condominium, then this Lease will terminate and Lessee will have no further obligation under this Lease. 14. Miscellaneous. This Lease contains the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Lease. Any amendment to this Lease is to be in writing and signed by the parties to this Lease. This Lease will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives of each of the parties. This Lease and any amendment may be executed in counterparts, any one of which will be considered an original for purposes of proof. Any signature to be affixed to this Agreement may be provided by a facsimile or by electronic signification. Lessee shall have the right to record this Lease in the land records in and for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. Any notices required to be given by this Lease must be in writing and may be delivered by hand, first class mail or overnight courier to the following: If to the City: Maurice Jones City Manager 605 East Main Street P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 With a copy to: City Attorney 605 East Main Street P. O. Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 If to Lessee: [Bidders to provide notice information.] Any party may substitute another address for notice by giving notice to the other party in the manner provided. Any party may provide a number for transmission of notice by facsimile or an address for transmission of notice by electronic mail. Any notice given by regular mail will be deemed to be received five business days after mailing. Any notice given by mail providing for return receipt or given by facsimile, electronic mail or overnight courier will be deemed to be received when delivered. A confirmation from the facsimile machine, electronic mail processor, or the overnight courier will be deemed prima facie proof of the date of delivery. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As appropriate to the contest, the singular will include the plural and vice versa, and any one gender will include the others. A waiver of any breach or of any condition of this Lease and the failure to enforce any provision of this Lease will not constitute a future waiver of the same provision or a waiver of any other provision of this Lease. In the event that any party initiates any action against any other regarding any breach of this Lease, the party substantially prevailing upon the merits (as determined in writing by the trier of facts) will be entitled to recover all costs incurred in connection with such action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to being awarded any other relief to which such party may be entitled, which costs, including attorney’s fees, may be recovered from time to time as incurred. WITNESS the following signatures and seals, as of the date first above written. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE By: ________________________ (SEAL) City Manager LESSOR By: ________________________ (SEAL) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Public Hearing and Approval of Ordinance Presenter: Brian Daly – Director, Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Chris Gensic – Park and Trails Planner, Parks and Recreation Title: Dominion Utility Easement at Ragged Mountain Reservoir Background: Dominion Energy, as part of their larger effort to ensure reliable power in the region, is working to underground certain portions of their transmission lines to avoid interruptions in storm events. Dominion is working to underground the lines that service the Ragged Mountain area and has requested an easement from the city across the reservoir properties located at 1170 and 1730 Reservoir Road. Discussion: When the new dam was constructed at Ragged Mountain, the service line was placed underground in the area near the dam. However, there a section leading from the dam down to Reservoir Road that remains above ground. Dominion is proposing to underground this section along a new alignment. The current overhead alignment goes up a steep hill and runs between trees that can fall and lead to power interruption to the dam. This section is also difficult to maintain due to the steep slope and lack of good truck access. The new alignment follows the existing driveway on a much more moderate grade. Staff is working with Dominion to ensure the area on City property where the current lines and poles are removed can be replanted to establish vegetation and trees on the steep slope area being vacated. Dominion plans to bore the new lines underground to minimize the need to any cutting and covering of the new line alignment Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This project supports City Council’s vision of “America’s Healthiest City” by ensuring our emergency response system is among the nation’s best and supports Goal 3.2 of the Strategic Plan: “Provide reliable and high quality infrastructure. Community Engagement: There has not ben specific community engagement about this proposed easement. Undergrounding utilities is one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing is scheduled as required by law to allow the public to comment on the proposed conveyance of the easement. Budgetary Impact: There is no impact on the general fund. All costs associated with this easement and work will be covered by Dominion Energy. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance in support of the easement. Alternatives: If the easement is not approved, the power lines will remain where they are currently located and above ground. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Letter from Dominion Energy, Draft Easement and Plat Vicinity Map AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS TO DOMINION ENERGY VIRGINIA ACROSS CITY-OWNED LAND KNOWN AS RAGGED MOUNTAIN NATURAL AREA WHEREAS, Dominion Energy Virginia has requested this Council to grant easements across property owned by the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, known as Ragged Mountain Natural Area located at 1730 and 1770 Reservoir Road in the County of Albemarle (County Tax Map 75, Parcels 47B1 and 1), as shown on the attached Easement Plat dated July 17, 2017, for the installation of underground electric lines and equipment; and WHEREAS, relocation of certain existing overhead electrical lines to underground locations will minimize maintenance of the lines and protect major transmission lines for Dominion Energy Virginia; WHEREAS, following notice to the public pursuant to Va. Code §15.2-1800(B), a public hearing by the City Council was held on November 6, 2017, and comments from the City staff, and the public were made and heard; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a Right of Way Agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, granting the above-described easements to Dominion Energy Virginia. City of Charlottesville Attn: Chris Gensic, Park and Trail Planner 1300 Pen Park Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Work Request #: 10136253 Project Location: 1770 Reservoir Road and 1730 Reservoir Road Albemarle County, VA 22903 Dear Chris Gensic, We are pleased to say that your area meets the initial criteria for the Strategic Underground Program and, with your partnership, we can proceed further. In order to proceed with the installation of underground facilities and removal of overhead electric lines, we ask property owners to grant an underground easement to Dominion. This easement authorizes the proposed work and allows Dominion to access power lines and equipment on your property for purposes of installation, maintenance, and repair. We have enclosed the easement for your review and have included an information sheet that explains easements in greater detail. As part of converting overhead service to underground, new equipment will be installed. Dominion's authorized Contractor is available to meet with you at your convenience to review the preliminary underground plan and review the easement document. W e can also assist with notarizing your signature if you are ready to sign the easement document. Once all of the required easements for the project have been received, we will communicate the schedule for the installation process. Please feel free to contact Staniec, the authorized contractor helping to perform work on this project: Robert Buckley Robert.BuckleyJr@stantec.com (804) 314-6388 We look forward to working with you on this project to improve electric service reliability. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank You, Jessica D. Burtner Aaron Tickle Communications Coordinator Project Manager Jessica.D.Burtner@dominionenergy.com Aaron. Tickle@dominionenergy.com (434) 972-6752 (434) 972-6751 Strategic Underground Please visit dom.com/un derg round for more information regarding the Domin i on Virginia Power Program"·' Strategic U nderground Program . ~Dominion Right of Way Agreement :;'iiiii"' Energy'' THIS RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ , 2017, by and between CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE ("GRANTOR") and VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY, a Virginia public service corporation, doing business in Virginia as Dominion Energy Virginia, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia ("GRANTEE"), WITNESS ETH: 1, That for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged, GRANTOR grants and conveys unto GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege and non-exclusive easement over, under, through, upon and across the property described herein, for the purpose of transmitting and distributing electric power by one or more circuits; for its own internal telephone and other internal communication purposes directly related to or incidental to the generation, distribution, and transmission of electricity, including the wires and facilities of any other public service company in aid of or to effectuate such internal telephone or other internal communication purposes; and for lighting purposes; including but not limited to the right: 1, 1 to lay, construct, operate and maintain one or more lines of underground conduits and cables including, without limitation, one or more lighting supports and lighting fixtures as GRANTEE may from time to time determine, and all wires, conduits, cables, transformers, transformer enclosures, concrete pads, manholes, handholes, connection boxes, accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection therewith; the width of said non-exclusive easement shall extend fifteen ( 15) feet in width across the lands of GRANTOR; and Initials: This Document Prepared by Virginia Electric and Power Company and should be returned to: Dominion Virginia Power, PO Box 26666, Richmond, VA 23261, (Page 1 of 5 Pages) DVPIDNo(s), 13-17-0324 Tax Map No, 07500000000100 & 07500000004781 Form No. 728493-1(Jul2017) © 2017 Dominion Enargy Right of Way Agreement 2. The easement granted herein shall extend across the lands of GRANTOR situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, as more fully described on Plat(s) Numbered 13-17-0324 , attached to and made a part of this Right of Way Agreement; the location of the boundaries of said easement being shown in broken lines on said Plat(s), reference being made thereto for a more particular description thereof. 3. All facilities constructed hereunder shall remain the property of GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall have the right to inspect, reconstruct, remove, repair, improve, relocate on the easement, and make such changes, alterations, substitutions, additions to or extensions of its facilities as GRANTEE may from time to time deem advisable. 4. GRANTEE shall have the right to keep the easement clear of all buildings, structures, trees, roots, undergrowth and other obstructions which would interfere with its exercise of the rights granted hereunder, including, without limitation, the right to trim, top, retrim, retop, cut and keep clear any trees or brush inside and outside the boundaries of the easement that may endanger the safe and proper operation of its facilities. All trees and limbs cut by GRANTEE shall remain the properly of GRANTOR. 5. For the purpose of exercising the right granted herein, GRANTEE shall have the right of ingress to and egress from this easement over such private roads as may now or hereafter exist on the property of GRANTOR. The right, however, is reserved to GRANTOR to shift, relocate, close or abandon such private roads at any time. If there are no public or private roads reasonably convenient lo the easement, GRANTEE shall have such right of ingress and egress over the lands of GRANTOR adjacent to the easement. GRANTEE shall exercise such rights in such manner as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to GRANTOR. 6. GRANTEE shall repair damage to roads, fences, or other improvements (a) inside the boundaries of the easement (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Right of Way Agreement) and (b) outside the boundaries of the easement and shall repair or pay GRANTOR, at GRANTEE's option, for other damage done to GRANTOR's property inside the boundaries of the easement (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights set forth in Paragraph 4 of !his Right of Way Agreement) and outside the boundaries of the easement caused by GRANTEE in the process of the construction, inspection, and maintenance of GRANTEE's facilities, or in the exercise of its right of ingress and egress; provided GRANTOR gives written notice thereof to GRANTEE within sixty (60) days after such damage occurs. Initials: (Page 2 of 5 Pages) DVPIDNo(s). 13-17-0324 f'orm No. 726493-2 (Jul 2017) © 2017 Dominion Energy Right of Way Agreement 7. GRANTOR,its successors and assigns, may use the easement for any reasonable purpose not inconsistent with the rights hereby granted, provided such use does not interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights hereunder. GRANTOR shall not have the right to construct any building, structure, or other above ground obstruction on the easement; provided, however, GRANTOR may construct on the easement fences, landscaping (subject, however, to GRANTEE's rights in Paragraph 4 of this Right of Way Agreement), paving, sidewalks, curbing, gutters, street signs, and below ground obstructions as long as said fences, landscaping, paving, sidewalks, curbing, gutters, street signs, and below ground obstructions do not interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted hereunder. In the event such use does interfere with GRANTEE's exercise of any of its rights granted hereunder, GRANTEE may, in its reasonable discretion, relocate such facilities as may be practicable to a new site designated by GRANTOR and acceptable to GRANTEE. In the event any such facilities are so relocated, GRANTOR shall reimburse GRANTEE for the cost thereof and convey to GRANTEE an equivalent easement at the new site. 8. GRANTEE'S right to assign or transfer its rights, privileges and easements, as granted herein, shall be strictly limited to the assignment or transfer of such rights, privileges and easements to any business which lawfully assumes any or all of GRANTEE'S obligations as a public service company or such other obligations as may be related to or incidental to GRANTEE'S stated business purpose as a public service company; and any such business to which such rights, privileges and easements may be assigned shall be bound by all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein. 9. If there is an Exhibit A attached hereto, then the easement granted hereby shall additionally be subject to all terms and conditions contained therein provided said Exhibit A is executed by GRANTOR contemporaneously herewith and is recorded with and as a part of this Right of Way Agreement. 10. Whenever the context of this Right of Way Agreement so requires, the singular number shall mean the plural and the plural the singular. Initials: (Page 3 of 5 Pages) DVPIDNo{s). 13-17-0324 Form No. 7211493-3 (Jul 2017) © 2017 Dominion Energy 11. GRANTOR hereby represents to GRANTEE that, to the best of GRANTOR'S knowledge, (a) GRANTOR is seized of and has the right to convey this easement and the rights and privileges granted hereunder; and (b) GRANTEE shall have quiet and peaceable possession, use and e1~oyment of the aforesaid easement, rights and privileges. 12. The individual executing this Right of Way Agreement on behalf of GRANTOR warrants that they have been duly authorized to execute this easement on behalf of said GRANTOR. NOTICE TO LANDOWNER: You are conveying rights to a public service corporation. A public service corporation may have the right to obtain some or all these rights through exercise of eminent domain. To the extent that any of the rights being conveyed are not subject to eminent domain, you have the right to choose not to convey those rights and you could not be compelled to do so. You have the right to negotiate compensation for any rights that you are voluntarily conveying. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has caused its name to be signed hereto by its authorized officer or agent, described below, on the date first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (Name) Title: _ __ (Title) State of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ County/City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, to wit: 1, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,a Notary Public in and for the State of Virginia at Large, do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me in my jurisdiction aforesaid (Name of officer or agent) (Title of officer or agent) City of Charlottesville, Virginia, whose name is signed to the foregoing writing dated this ____ day of , 2017, and acknowledged the same before me. Given under my hand , 2017. Notary Public (Print Name) Notary Name (Signature) Virginia Notary Reg. No. ________ My Commission Expires: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DVPIDNo. 13-17-0324 Page 4 of 5 N CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1770 RESERVOIR ROAD. 07500000000100 w N/F HEDGEROW HOLDINGS VI LLC 07500000004780 15' DVP. UG ESMT. RESERVOIR ROAD N/F HOLIDAY TRAILS INC 745 HOLIDAY TRAILS LANE 075000000047CO 075000000047C1 1. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1730 RESERVOIR ROAD 2. N/F 07500000004781 Piaf to Accompany RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY Right-of-Way Agreement 075000000047C2 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY doing business as Legend Dominion Energy Virginia UG - - - - Location of Boundary Lines of Right-of-Woy 15' in Width. - =F[== - Indicates Pro~erty Line is Right-of-Way istrict-Township-Borough County-City Stole Boundary 15 in Width. Samuel Miller Albemarle Co. VA N/F Now or Formerly Plat Number 13-17-0324 *NOTE: Location of underground cable as installed will Grid Number determine the centerline of the easement. F2225 y Owners Initials Page 5 of 5 7/17/2017 E. Jones 10136253_0324.dwg RAGGED MOUNTAIN Proposed Dominion Underground Easement Roundtop Mtn. Parking Lot DAM PROPOSED CITY EASEMENT AREA Existing overhead line Alongside Entry Drive Lower Parking Reservoir Road PROPOSED CITY EASEMENT AREA Across entry area 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: First Report - FY 2018 – 20 Strategic Plan and City Council 2017 Workplan Presenter: Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Title: Report - FY 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan and City Council 2017 Workplan Background: FY 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan On June 19, 2017 City Council approved the FY 2018 – 2020 Strategic Plan the result of a refresh of the previous strategic plan that started in July 2016 with a series of interviews with City Council and engagement of numerous staff over the next several months. This work occurred between July and October 2016, and on November 10, 2016, City Council held a retreat at which time was spent reviewing the refreshed plan and making changes/additions to the plan. The plan started on July 1, 2017 and this is the first report out of this plan. City Council Annual Workplan City Council adopted their annual workplan on June 19, 2017. This was the first recommendation of the City of Charlottesville Efficiency Study, completed and presented to City Council earlier this year, is to have Council “Develop a prioritized annual workplan to strategically guide organizational efforts.” To quote directly from the City of Charlottesville Efficiency Study, “An annual work plan allows the governing body to respond to the changing needs of the community while not supplanting the City’s existing planning efforts. It provides a vehicle for the Council to identify, collectively, those initiatives within the various plans that are to be prioritized by City staff in the coming year. Further, it establishes clear guidance and accountability to City staff.” Discussion: Staff has created a series of scorecards to basically set the “base” for the Strategic Plan and Workplan elements. The website Open Charlottesville can be found at www.charlottesville.org/data and will not only feature the Strategic Plan scorecards but will provide performance measures, information and updates on those priorities important to City Council and the community all in one place for ease of use, contributing to the fulfillment of the City’s Strategic Plan goal of being a responsive organization. This website will feature the Strategic Plan, department scorecards, the efficiency study report and the Open Data portal as a start. Staff will prepare a second report on each for Council to consider and discuss further at their January 2018 retreat. Regarding an implementation plan for the Strategic Plan, a Strategic Plan Core Team has been meeting since the summer and will provide the framework and tools for a successful implementation. So far they have provided input into the scorecards you are reviewing as part of this report and are providing guidance and templates for the next phase of which includes each department developing their own workplan that will both align with the Strategic Plan and will be a plan for their own objectives, initiatives and will house their performance data. The draft for these plans is due by end of this calendar year, with a final product due by June 2018. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This agenda item speaks directly to the City’s overall Strategic Plan. Community Engagement: Staff is encouraging the community to provide feedback on Open Charlottesville. The website has a feature that allows for such feedback. Budgetary Impact: While this approval has no budget impact by itself, there could be budget impact and needed resources should Strategic Plan and Workplan items be implemented and are to move forward. Staff will come back with specific recommendations when necessary. Recommendation: As these reports provide a base for the Strategic Plan and the Council Workplan, staff is looking for any feedback from Council as to what they would like to see differently in these scorecards and general questions about the content and any thoughts on how they would like to use this data and information. Alternatives: N/A Attachments: Strategic Plan Core Team Charter Work Plan City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan Core Team Charter 1. Introduction The City of Charlottesville has created a three year Strategic Plan to clarify the organization’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives. The Plan identifies the initiatives the organization must implement to achieve the goals reality and the performance measures it must track to demonstrate progress. The Strategic Plan will guide the organization in decision making and resource allocation. This document details the membership, roles and responsibilities of the Core Team. 2. Purpose The Core Team is responsible and accountable for processes and tactics associated with the successful implementation of the Strategic Plan. 3. Roles & Responsibilities  Institutionalizes, promotes and champions the Strategic Plan  Aligns and supports coordination of the Plan with departmental plans, city operations and personnel evaluations to more strategically manage the organization  Provides a template for accountability systems to be used by City Manager when talking to department heads about their department’s progress/challenges as it relates to the Strategic Plan  Creates systems and processes that ensure initiatives are successfully implemented by designated timelines, promoting collaboration on initiatives and making available any needed resources  Assures provision of technical assistance to departments to ensure alignment of the Strategic Plan down to the departmental level  Removes any barriers to implementing the Strategic Plan  Facilitates the continued transition to a performance managed organization that makes decisions and allocates resources based on the strategic direction of the organization and data collected on performance measures  Holds regular meetings with City Manager to review progress and challenges.  Facilitates monthly meetings with Leadteam (as part of regular Leadteam meetings) about strategic plan implementation and progress Roles and Responsibilities for Other Categories City Council  Is Responsible for the strategic direction of the organization and aligns their decision and policy making process with the Strategic Plan. City Manager  Sponsors Strategic Plan Core Team  Ensures organization is moving forward with the Strategic Plan and incorporating the concepts of strategic management into its daily operations by making clear Leadteam’s role in the implementation of the Strategic Plan and holding department heads accountable for such. Holds department heads accountable for alignment of department plan with the Strategic Plan (working through the Assistant City Managers, annual reviews, Leadteam meetings, etc.)  Reports successes to the Council and staff for celebration and challenges to the Council and staff for assistance with problem solving  Require departments to show how they are meeting the provisions of the Plan as part of the annual budget process. Assistant City Manager(s)  Serves as co-chairs of the Strategic Plan Core Team  Supports the City Manager to keep the focus on the strategic plan and ensure the strategic plan initiatives for the current year are being accomplished and the desired outcomes are being achieved  Supports departments and holds them accountable through regularly held meetings regarding the Strategic Plan and implementation of their elements of the plan Leadteam  Is accountable for and takes ownership and responsibility on one or more assigned goals and related objectives, initiatives, and measures  Has responsibility for progress for their own department plans and measures  Holds department staff accountable for making progress and achieving desired outcomes  Reports successes and challenges and seeks assistance as needed CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Consideration of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Rezoning (1st of 2 Readings) Presenter: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: ZM17-00001 – 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Request Background: Applicant Request Kurt Wassenaar, President of Wassenaar + Winkler Architects and Planners, is representing Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) and New Millennium Senior Living Communities (NMSLC), a development group based out of Roanoke, Virginia that specializes in senior housing, independent living, assisted living and nursing properties in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the United States. The applicant is seeking approval to rezone properties 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street (“Subject Properties”) from the existing single-family Low-Density Residential (R-1) zoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with proffers. The rezoning request is subject to the following proffered conditions including: (i) providing two (2) duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) housing affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI), this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting; and, (ii) donation of $75,000 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing fund. In addition to the R-1 zoning, 1025 Park Street (MACAA’s current site) has a special use permit granted by City Council in 1993 for a private school/education facility (community education center) and amended in 1995 to permanently close access to 250 Bypass. The applicant’s rezoning request proposes a PUD that allows for an “intergenerational campus” that would locate a senior housing facility, containing a mix of assisted living and independent living units (141 units proposed), on the current MACAA site (1025 Park Street), and to re- locate MACAA’s operation and facilities to the adjacent “Stone House” (1021 Park Street) 1 immediately North of the MACAA site. The applicant proposes to re-utilize and preserve the Stone House for MACAA’s executive offices and construct a new school building behind the Stone House for MACAA’s early childhood development program among its other programs. At 1023 Park Street, the applicant is proposing four (4) affordable, age restricted (62+) units in the form of two (2) duplexes fronting on Park Street. The total proposed mix of units including the senior living facility and the affordable dwelling units is 145 units. The PUD request proposes to maintain the closure of the access from the property onto Route 250 Bypass, allowing for Emergency Access only. Note: Provided below is a bullet list of major items that have been modified from the original application heard before Planning Commission August 8, 2017 to the application heard before Planning Commission October 10, 2017 (the current application): • Intersection Improvements at MACAA Drive/Park Street: Removed left turn out of MACAA Drive, allowing for only through and right-turn movement onto Davis Avenue and Park Street and addition of pedestrian flashing beacons at proposed crosswalk (North side crosswalk has been relocated to the south side as requested by neighborhood) • Reduced proposed total of units from 151 (all senior units (mix of assisted/independent/memory care)) to 145 (to included 141 senior units (mix of assisted/independent/memory care) and 4 units of affordable, age-restricted (62+) housing • Proposed Senior Living Facility Building proposed building has been reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories with a proposed maximum height of 55 feet • Surface parking has been reduced from 164 spaces to 140 spaces and 47 spaces are proposed as permeable pavers at the southern, western and eastern parking lots • Emergency Services Access off 250 Bypass has been removed to preserve Rock Hill Garden stone walls • The applicant has now included a proffer statement (there was no proffer statement provided in original application), where the proffers include: (i) providing two (2) duplexes (4 units total) of age-restricted (62+) housing affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI), this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting (ii) donation of $75,000 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing fund For more detailed information on this application, please see the proposed PUD Development Plan (Attachment 5). Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-42 (Attachment 2) and Planning Commission’s recommendation (see Recommendation section below). Relevant code sections are listed below to assist in Council’s determination. 2 Relevant Code Sections • Zoning Ordinance Section 34-490 – Planned Unit Development Objectives (Attachment 3) Sec. 34-1123 – Lot Area Requirements - Residential uses The Subject Properties’ current zoning (R-1) limits residential uses to single-family detached dwellings (SFD), which may contain interior or exterior accessory dwelling units, limited to 1 SFD per 8,125 square foot lot effective density 5 DUA. • 2013 Comprehensive Plan The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Low Density Residential, where the recommended density range provided for Low Density Residential areas is “not to exceed 15 DUA.” • Streets That Work The Subject Property fronts on Park Street which is considered a Neighborhood A Street Typology. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies of the Streets That Work Plan include Neighborhood A streets and the remaining street typologies with their associated design parameters. To access the full Streets That Work Plan, follow this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan Discussion: Overview of Staff Analysis Staff reviewed the PUD rezoning request in light of the Subject Property’s current zoning, Streets That Work Guidelines, the PUD Objectives set forth in Sec. 34-490, and the Comprehensive Plan. Overall, staff finds the proposed PUD Development Plan provides a unique opportunity for an “intergenerational campus” that provides housing for the growing 65+ population, sustains MACAA, an organization that provides programs that meet many of the City’s goals in serving the low-income community and commits to providing four (4) affordable, age restricted (65+) units on-site in coordination with the City’s Housing Coordinator. In addition, the concept layout demonstrates efforts to use environmentally sensitive design by utilizing the existing building site in order to preserve the environmental and historic features of the site (environmental features at rear of site: critical slopes, heavily wooded areas, meadows, Rock Hill Gardens, flood plain), which otherwise might not be preserved in a by-right scenario. The applicant has demonstrated their intent to improve connectivity and access through the proposed improvements at the Park/Davis Ave/MACAA Drive intersection, many of which comply with Streets That Work, and the proposed future public access via an agreement with City Parks and 3 Recreation to allow for public access to the historic Rock Hill Gardens and the existing John Warner Parkway trail system. Staff believes the designation of a PUD allows for the unique, integrated mix of uses that would be a benefit to this community and a site layout that is, for the most part, cohesive and environmentally sensitive. Staff would like to state that overall, they are supportive of the concept. Many of staff’s previous concerns have been addressed in the updated application; however, there are concerns that remain. Staff’s concerns are as follows: • Proposed Density: The proposed density of 16 DUA exceeds the by-right density (effective density for R-1: 5 DUA) and the Comprehensive Plan density range for Low Density Residential, where for those areas it states to “not exceed 15 DUA.” While staff sees an argument for a higher density than allowed by-right in light of the Subject Properties’ size (9.312 acres), its isolated location (existing tree buffers and heavily wooded slopes on the west side), staff has concern with the proposed density exceeding the by-right density and what is intended to be the maximum density listed in the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density Residential areas. Staff also notes that in a by-right scenario, an R-1 property is allowed to have up to 8 Adult Assisted Living Residents. • Massing: The proposed massing and scale of the senior living facility, reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories with a maximum height of 55’ is an improvement from the original 75’ maximum height in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood that contains single- family residences not to exceed 35’ in height per their R-1 zoning. Staff notes that the size of the building is arguably more hidden given the location of the site and the preserved wooded areas and the location of the building situated back behind the three structures that front on Park Street (proposed not exceed the existing by-right height of 35’). While staff believes the updated proposed massing and scale would be better hidden behind the tree-line and provide for a better transition than the original proposed massing and scale, staff still has concern the scale is larger than what would be allowed in the current zoning and in light of the surrounding neighborhood. • Surface Parking: Staff believes the applicant has made an effort to address this concern providing for an improved layout from the original application, where the total number of parking spaces provided has been reduced 20 spaces and there is an increase in permeable parking spaces. The applicant has also noted relocation of trees that are eight-inch caliper or greater to other places on-site to help preserve more trees. The reason this is still listed as a concern is because staff believes the scale (number of units) and business model of the senior living facility is the driving force behind the large number of parking spaces, where a smaller-scale senior living facility would require less parking. The amount of surface parking throughout the site detracts from the overall site’s layout’s attempt to be innovative in its arrangement of uses (See PUD Objectives 1, 2). However, staff commends the applicant’s efforts to utilize shared sparking, reduce the amount of spaces from the original application and provide an increase in permeable paving. 4 *For a more detailed review of staff’s analysis, see the Staff Report dated October 2, 2017 provided at the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Public Hearing held October 10, 2017 (Attachment 4 OR follow the link to the staff report with application materials attached: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=56194 ) Planning Commission The Planning Commission discussed the special use permit request at their October 24, 2017 special meeting. The topics of discussion that the Commission focused on were: • The importance of separating the MACAA organization’s mission from the land use and zoning practices being proposed as the Planning Commission deliberated a recommendation for City Council • The environmental benefits of the proposal (preservation of Rock Hill Gardens, preservation of slopes/wooded areas, and provision of public access) • Whether the proposal met certain Planned Unit Development (PUD) objectives; where some Commissioners felt the proposed land use and layout did not necessarily meet the intent of certain objectives (for example, innovative arrangement of buildings), others stated the layout did • Parking: concern over the amount of surface parking, specifically: o for portions of the layout (north and southeast sides), although it is proposed to be screened, parking took up the majority of area directly adjacent to the neighboring residences o How one would have to traverse a parking lot if going from the MACAA school building and/or playground to the senior living facility • The senior living facility building as it related to different sides of the neighborhood (250 Bypass versus the adjacent residences) Alignment with City Council’s Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The proposed Joint Use Agreement with the City of Charlottesville to provide public access through the Subject Properties, specifically the historic Rock Hill Gardens and a connection to the greater City trail system (John Warner Parkway trail, Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park) align with the City Council Vision of A Connected Community and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.3, “provide a variety of transportation and mobility options.” The concept layout’s demonstrated effort to use environmentally sensitive design by utilizing the existing building site in order to preserve the environmental and historic features of the site (environmental features at rear of site: critical slopes, heavily wooded areas, meadows, Rock Hill Gardens, flood plain), which otherwise might not be preserved in a by-right scenario contributes 5 to both the City Council Vision A Green City and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.4, “protect historic and cultural resources” and Goal 3.5, “be responsible stewards of natural resources.” Providing for housing for the aging population (65+) in a central location in the City while sustaining an organization that provides programs that meet many of the City’s goals in serving the low-income community contributes to aspects of the City Council Vision Quality Housing Opportunities For All, specifically, “our housing stock is connected with parks, trails, and services” and “our neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types…pedestrian and transit- oriented housing at employment and cultural centers.” Community Engagement: The Planning Commission held a joint public hearing with City Council on this matter at their meeting on October 10, 2017. Please see Attachment 6 for an excerpt of the October 10, 2017 meeting minutes for a detailed list of individual public comments made during the rezoning’s Public Hearing. Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on July 17, 2017 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). The applicant held additional meetings outside of City requirements in continued efforts to answer questions and address neighborhood concerns. Many residents have sent individual comments to Staff; this correspondence can be found in Attachment 6. A summary and overview of comments from the public throughout this process regarding the PUD Rezoning request are: • Concern around increased in traffic generated from the senior living facility • Concern the use is commercial in nature • Concern the scale of the project is too large in proximity to low-residential neighborhood • Concern around noise generated from the use (e.g. dumpsters, food deliveries) • Desire for a public or commercial space (café or restaurant) in the development for neighborhood residents to gather • Desire for the site to remain single-family residential in nature to maintain the neighborhood feel. • Concern the duplexes don’t fit with the adjacent single-family residences. • Desire for bicycle accommodations along Park Street 6 Budgetary Impact: A Senior Housing Project at 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street, based on 145 residential units is expected to generate - $580,000 in annual city revenue. This includes applicable real property taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, meals taxes, Business Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) and utility taxes. In addition, there would be an estimated one time increase of $150,000 in BPOL and permitting fees. A number of construction related jobs (40-60) would be demanded during the construction period which is expected to last 18-24 months. The number of permanent jobs created by this project will depend on the specific needs and business model of the operator but could be expected to be in the 60-75 range. The parcels involved in this project are currently tax exempt and do not generate any city revenue annually. Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: Mr. Clayborne moved to recommend approval of this application to rezone the Subject Properties zoned R-1 Low Density Residential, to PUD with proffers provided on August 28, 2017 on the basis that the proposal would serve the interests of the general public welfare and good zoning practice. This recommendation of approval is based on Sec. 34-42(1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan and Sec. 34-42(2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Mr. Santoski seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-2 (Green-Santoski) to recommend approval of the application to rezone the aforementioned parcels. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached ordinance for rezoning (as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, take action to deny the attached ordinance for rezoning; or (3) by motion, defer action on the attached ordinance for rezoning. Attachment: (1) Proposed Resolution Approving a Planned Unit Development (2) Sec. 34-42 – Commission study and action; Sec. 34-43 – Council study and action (3) Sec. 34-490 – PUD Objectives (4) Planning Commission Staff Report, October 10, 2017 (5) Proffer Statement and PUD Development Plan, August 28, 2017 (6) Public Comments: (i) Meeting Date October 10, 2017 Minutes Excerpt: MACAA Public Hearing Comments and (ii) Public Written Correspondence received 7 ZM17-00001 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICABLE TO PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE MACAA INTERGENERATIONAL CAMPUS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (“PUD”) WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency and 1023 Park Street, LLC (“Landowners”) have submitted application number ZM17-00001, seeking a rezoning of property located at 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street (City Tax Map 47, Parcels 7.1, 8 and 11) consisting, of approximately 405,631 square feet of land (9.312 acres) (collectively, the “Subject Property”) in order to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1 to PUD, subject to proffered development conditions (“Proposed Rezoning”); and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on the Proposed Rezoning was held before the City Council and Planning Commission on October 10, 2017, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing held on October 10, 2017 was advertised in accordance with Va. Code Sec. 15.2-2204; and WHEREAS, as part of its Proposed Rezoning the Landowners proffered two development conditions, and the proffers tendered by the Landowners were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2017, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Proposed Rezoning to the City Council, based on a finding that the Proposed Rezoning is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Proposed Rezoning, the Landowners submitted: (i) a written PUD Development Plan, dated August 28, 2017, titled “MACAA Intergenerational Campus”, and (ii) proffered development conditions submitted in writing to the City on August 28, 2017; and WHEREAS, this Council finds and determines that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice requires the Proposed Rezoning; that the existing zoning classification as well as the proposed PUD zoning are both reasonable; that the Proposed Rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the proffered development conditions are reasonable; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Zoning District Map Incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, be and hereby is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 34-1. Zoning District Map. Rezoning from R-1 Residential to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”), the property designated on City Tax Map 47 as Parcels 7.1, 8 and 11 (1021, 1023, and 1025 Park Street) (the “Property”), consisting of approximately 405,631 square feet of land (9.312 acres) subject to the following proffered development conditions, which were tendered by the Applicant in accordance with law and are hereby accepted by this City Council: Proffered Development Conditions The use and development of the Property shall be in conformity with the following development conditions proffered by the Landowners: 1. Two duplexes (4 units, total) within the MACAA Intergenerational Campus PUD shall be age-restricted dwelling units, for individuals 62 years of age or older, and shall be affordable to households earning up to eighty percent (80%) of the area median income for the City of Charlottesville. Landowner(s) will coordinate with the City’s Housing Program Director on compliance reporting. 2. Landowners will donate the amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund, for affordable workforce housing. Attachment 2 Sec. 34-42. - Commission study and action. (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. (b) Prior to making any recommendation to the city council, the planning commission shall advertise and hold at least one (1) public hearing on a proposed amendment. The planning commission may hold a joint public hearing with the city council. (c) The planning commission shall review the proposed amendment and shall report its findings and recommendations to the city council, along with any appropriate explanatory materials, within one hundred (100) days after the proposed amendment was referred to the commission for review. Owner-initiated petitions for zoning map amendments shall be deemed referred to the commission as of the date on which: (i) city council, by motion or by resolution, refers an amendment to the commission for review, or (ii) the first planning commission meeting following referral by the director of neighborhood development services pursuant to section 31-41(c)(3). Failure of the commission to report to city council within the 100-day period shall be deemed a recommendation of approval, unless the petition is withdrawn. In the event of and upon such withdrawal, processing of the proposed amendment shall cease without further action. (9-15-03(3); 10-19-15(3)) Sec. 34-43. - Council study and action. (a) Before enacting any proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, the city council shall advertise and hold at least one (1) public hearing thereon. The city council may hold a joint public hearing with the planning commission. (b) Council may make appropriate changes or corrections in the proposed ordinance or amendment as a result of the public hearing; provided, however, that no land may be rezoned to a more intensive use classification than was identified in the public notice of the public hearing without an additional public hearing conducted after notice as required by law. Where substantial changes have been made in a rezoning application following a public hearing, the city council may hold an additional public hearing. (c) Once a petition seeking an amendment of the zoning ordinance has been advertised for a public hearing, the city council shall not consider another petition which is substantially the same as that advertised for a period of one (1) year from the date the advertised petition was accepted by the director of neighborhood development services. (9-15-03(3)) Page 1 Attachment 3 Sec. 34-490. - Objectives. In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: (1) To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; (2) To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. (3) To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; (4) To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; (5) To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; (6) To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; (7) To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; (8) To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and (9) To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; (10) To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle- alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. (9-15-03(3)) Page 1 Attachment 4 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: October 10, 2017 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM17-00001 The following rezoning request went before Planning Commission at their August 8, 2017 meeting. The following report includes much of the same information that was provided to Planning Commission at their August 8th meeting; however, the current application moving forward has been modified by the applicant (information submitted August 28, 2017) from the original application in efforts to respond to concerns posed by the surrounding neighborhoods, Planning Commission and Council. Additional staff analysis regarding the updated application is reflected in the text in the color blue and italicized for ease of finding new analysis based off of the updated information given by the applicant. Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: October 2, 2017 Project Name: Monticello Area Community Agency (MACAA) Intergenerational Campus – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Applicant: Monticello Area Community Agency (MACAA) and New Millennium Senior Living Communities (NMSLC) Applicants Representative: Kurt Wassenaar, President of Wassenaar + Winkler Architects and Planners Current Property Owner: Monticello Area Community Agency (MACAA) and 1023 Park St, LLC Application Information Property Street Addresses: 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 47, Parcels 7.1, 8, 11 Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 9.312 acres or 405,630.7 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Low Density Residential 1 Current Zoning Classification: R-1 & R-1 with SUP for a Community Education Center at 1025 Park St (TM 47 P 7.1) Tax Status: No delinquent taxes Application Timeline March 22, 2017: Pre-Application Meeting required per Sec. 34-41(b)(1) April 5, 2017: Preliminary Discussion Meeting with Council Members (Wes Bellamy & Kathy Galvin). Discussion included the following: mass of building surrounded by surface parking versus alternative ways to address parking, access to the historic Rock Hill Gardens, walkability, and affordability of units on-site. April 11, 2017: Preliminary Discussion Planning Commission (Attachment 5) April 25, 2017: Rezoning Application Submittal #1 (Rejection Letter May 8, 2017; Attachment 3) May 23, 2017: Rezoning Application Submittal #2 (Rejection Letter June 5, 2017; Attachment 3) June 19, 2017: Rezoning Application Submittal #3 July 17, 2017: Community Meeting held per Sec. 34-41(c)(2) August 8, 2017: Informal Public Hearing Planning Commission (Staff Report, Attachment 6) August 15, 2017: Meeting with Applicant and Housing Program Coordinator August 28, 2017: Rezoning Application Submittal #4 with updates in response to concerns of neighborhood, Planning Commission and Council (Attachment 1) September 25, 2017: Additional Community Meeting held Applicant’s Request Kurt Wassenaar, President of Wassenaar + Winkler Architects and Planners, is representing Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) and New Millennium Senior Living Communities (NMSLC), a development group based out of Roanoke, Virginia that specializes in senior housing, independent living, assisted living and nursing properties in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the United States. The applicant is seeking approval to rezone properties 1021, 1023 and 1025 Park Street (“Subject Properties”) from the existing single-family Low-Density Residential (R-1) zoning to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with proffers. The rezoning request is subject to the following proffered conditions including: (i) providing two (2) duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) housing affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI), this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting; and, (ii) donation of $75,000 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing fund. In addition to the R-1 zoning, 1025 Park Street (MACAA’s current site) has a special use permit granted by City Council in 1993 for a private school/education facility (community education center) and amended in 1995 to permanently close access to 250 Bypass. The applicant’s rezoning request proposes a PUD that allows for an “intergenerational campus” that would locate a senior housing facility, containing a mix of assisted living and independent living units (141 units proposed 151 total units proposed), on the current MACAA site (1025 Park Street), and to re-locate MACAA’s operation and facilities to the adjacent “Stone House” (1021 Park Street) immediately North of the MACAA site. The applicant proposes to re-utilize and 2 preserve the Stone House for MACAA’s executive offices and construct a new school building behind the Stone House for MACAA’s early childhood development program among its other programs. At 1023 Park Street, the applicant is proposing four (4) affordable, age restricted (62+) units in the form of two (2) duplexes fronting on Park Street. The total proposed mix of units including the senior living facility and the affordable dwelling units is 145 units. The PUD request proposes to maintain the closure of the access from the property onto Route 250 Bypass, allowing for Emergency Access only. Note: This item went before the Planning Commission August 8, 2017. Provided below is a bullet list of major items that have been modified from the original application heard before Planning Commission August 8th in the current application (Please reference the updated PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2)): • Intersection Improvements at MACAA Drive/Park Street: Removed left turn out of MACAA Drive, allowing for only through and right-turn movement onto Davis Avenue and Park Street and addition of pedestrian flashing beacons at proposed crosswalk (North side crosswalk has been relocated to the south side as requested by neighborhood) • Reduced proposed total of units from 151 (all senior units (mix of assisted/independent/memory care)) to 145 (to included 141 senior units (mix of assisted/independent/memory care) and 4 units of affordable, age-restricted (62+) housing • Proposed Senior Living Facility Building proposed building has been reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories with a proposed maximum height of 55 feet • Surface parking has been reduced from 164 spaces to 140 spaces and 47 spaces are proposed as permeable pavers at the southern, western and eastern parking lots • Emergency Services Access off 250 Bypass has been removed to preserve Rock Hill Garden stone walls • The applicant has now included a proffer statement (there was no proffer statement provided in original application), where the proffers include: (i) providing two (2) duplexes (4 units total) of age-restricted (62+) housing affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI), this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting (ii) donation of $75,000 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing fund 3 Vicinity Map 2016 Aerial 4 Zoning Map Purple Dashed Outline: Special Use Permit (SUP), Yellow: R-1 (Single-Family), Blue Cross-Hatch: Individual Protected Property (IPP), Green: Parks, Brown: McIntire-5th Residential (MR) 2013 Comp Plan Yellow: Low Density Residential, Green: Park or Preserved Open Space Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-42. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-42(a): 5 (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Preliminary Analysis The Subject Properties are approximately 9.312 acres and include three (3) lots. The Subject Properties collectively have frontage on Park Street and Route 250 Bypass. The Subject Properties, specifically the current MACAA site (1025 Park Street), are unique in that they are somewhat isolated from the adjacent stretch of single-family residential homes along Park Street. The Subject Properties are bounded by heavily wooded slopes on the west side, which connect directly to the John Warner Parkway trail system, Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park. The Subject Properties contain environmental features including: large stand of trees, critical slopes and are home to the historic Rock Hill Gardens. The proposed conceptual plan (Attachment 2 PUD Development Plan – see specifically Component 2(a) & Component 2(b)) proposes five four structures throughout the Subject Properties: (1) Existing repurposed 2-story “Stone House” (1021 Park Street) fronting on Park St to house MACAA administrative offices (2) A newly constructed 2-story school building located behind existing “Stone House” (3) Two (2) newly constructed duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) independent living cottages affordable to households earning 80% of AMI (4) A newly constructed 4-story 5-story Senior Living Center to locate in the middle/rear of site and replace existing MACAA buildings/facilities containing 141 150 units The plan proposes a total of 144 parking spaces 164 parking spaces. This number has been reduced 20 spaces from the original application, where the applicant has indicated the MACAA parking lot (parking lot closest to the MACAA office (Stone House) and school building) will be shared with the senior living facility staff and visitors during MACAA’s off hours. MACAA’s operations are from 7:15am-3:00pm, allowing for shared parking during the weekday after 4:00pm. The applicant states most visitors for the senior housing facility come between the hours of 4:00pm and 8:00pm. In addition, the applicant has been in coordination with CAT regarding the existing Route 11 which serves Park Street but stops at North Avenue just north of MACAA Drive. The applicant, should this request be approved, will continue to coordinate with CAT by requesting that Route 11 be extended to include a bus stop location within the MACAA campus given the proposed use as a senior housing project. 6 140 of those spaces are proposed in the form of surface parking spaces ancillary to the proposed senior living facility and education uses and the remaining 4 spaces are within the affordable independent cottages which will have garages; 47 spaces are called out as permeable spaces (originally there were 33 permeable parking spaces) and, included in the permeable parking spaces, there is a portion to be used as a shared use plaza for NMSLC/MACAA gatherings in off- hours (See Component 2(b) of the PUD Development Plan, Attachment 2). The buildings featured on the PUD Development Plan collectively are proposed to have up to approximately no greater than 219,500 gross square feet (5.04 acres) with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.54. The applicant is proposing a total of 145 units (units includes a mix of memory care, assisted living and independent living units) which equates to an approximate density of 16 DUA. 141 of those units would locate in the proposed 4 story senior living facility with the remaining units replacing the existing single-family dwelling on 1023 Park Street with two (2) newly constructed duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) independent living cottages affordable to households earning 80% of AMI (Residential proposed at a range of 165,000 – 200,000 gross square feet (GSF)). The applicant proposes to maintain MACAA’s current operations on-site, which include a 2-story school building (proposed at a range of 13,500-15,000 GSF) and the MACAA offices that would locate in the existing Stone House (approximately 3,800-4,500 GSF). Lastly, a temporary sales office is proposed in what will be one of the affordable independent living cottages fronting on Park St mentioned above. Should this PUD be approved, the property would be limited to the following proposed uses that include the Senior Living Facility (mix of Adult Assisted Living and Independent Living), Education Facility: Vocational, and four (4) affordable, age restricted (62+) independent living cottages that are monitored by the Housing Program Coordinator per the proposed proffer statement. A full breakdown of uses that includes Open Space is included on Component 2(b) of the PUD Development Plan. Building Heights range from 35’ maximum height along Park Street to maximum 55’ 75’ height at the rear of the property where the senior living facility would locate. The updated proposed total number of units on-site, including the senior living facility (mix of assisted, independent and memory care) and affordable independent living cottages is 145, down 6 units from the original proposed 151 units. The residential density proposed remains the same when taking into account the reduction in units, equaling 16 dwelling units per acre (DUA) which exceeds what would be allowed under by-right zoning. The by-right zoning (R-1) limits residential uses to single-family detached dwellings (SFD), which may contain interior or exterior accessory dwelling units, limited to 1 SFD per 8,125 square foot lot (effective density 5 DUA). Based off of the total area of the site, this would equate to approximately 46 units total. This does not, however, take into account the area needed for new road/utility construction or the large portion of the site in the rear that contains critical slopes/floodplain area. Staff has approximated that if those environmental areas are taken into account, a more realistic by-right unit number would be between 25-30 SFD units total (Note: this is an approximate figure is given to provide an approximate comparison to the proposed 151 units). The zoning specific to 1025 Park Street (existing MACAA site) also allows for a Community Education Center allowed via SUP granted in 1993. 7 Open Space: The proposal preserves existing natural areas located at the rear of the site and make up approximately 3.30 acres as Open Space. The Preserved Natural Areas (3.30 acres) contain the Rock Hill Gardens and are proposed to remain. Within this portion of the Open Space, the plan calls for a “Joint Use Agreement between NMSLC and Charlottesville Parks and Rec Department” to allow for future public access to the natural areas, Rock Hill Gardens and for future connectivity to the John Warner Parkway trail, Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park. -Total Open Space: 58.92% or 5.49 acres -Total Open Space includes Preserved Natural Areas (3.30 Acres), landscaped areas, resident gardens and courtyard, and playground -Net Loss Vegetative Cover: 7.03 acres (pre-development vegetative cover) – 5.78 acres 5.72 acres (post-development vegetative cover) = 1.32 Acres 1.25 acres **Full % Site Area breakdown found on Component 2(b) of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2) Traffic Impact: The traffic impact is an important part of the discussion given the existing condition versus the proposed condition of the MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue intersection, the limited visibility along Park Street and the amount of trips estimated as a result of the proposed use of a senior living facility that would be in addition to the existing MACAA operation on-site. Existing Conditions Under existing conditions, traffic on Park Street in front of the proposed site is approximately 11,000 20,000 VPD (Vehicles per Day); the 11,000 VPD figure has been verified by traffic counts done in early August 2017 by the City Traffic Engineering Department. The existing use of the MACAA site generates approximately 86 trips per day (43 in/43 out). The driveway for MACAA creates its own difficulties. The current orientation of the driveway does not line up with Davis Ave across the street and there is a vertical curve on Park Street that limits visibility to both MACAA Drive and Davis Ave. Along with this orientation, there is an existing stone wall along the west side of Park Street that greatly reduces visibility. Due to this constraint, there is currently a “No Left Turn” sign for the MACAA driveway. Pedestrian movements in this location are limited to a single, skewed, crosswalk from the south side of Davis to the south side of the MACAA driveway. Proposed Improvements Under the proposed intersection improvements, traffic will increase from approximately 86 trips per day, to 486 trips per day, an approximated 400 trip increase. Much of this traffic will be due to staff for the senior living facility which has shift changes in off peak hours creating less of an impact to the existing traffic patterns. In working with the applicant on what may be appropriate to deal with traffic at the site, several improvements have been proposed (Please see Component 3(b) – Transportation Plan of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2) to see the proposed improvements). First, to deal with the additional traffic, the applicant has proposed the installation of a left turn lane into their site so that traffic on northbound Park St. will not be backed up waiting for a vehicle to turn into 8 MACAA. Secondly, to deal with sight distance issues, they have proposed several improvements: • Realigning MACAA Drive to orient it directly across from Davis Ave. This creates better traffic efficiencies and gives drivers a more conventional intersection to anticipate driver movements • Modifications to the existing stone wall will increase the sight distance from 100’ to over 225’. While this does not meet the VDOT criteria for stopping sight distance for a 25mph roadway, the applicant proposes to install a warning sign with an advisory speed limit of 20mph on Park Street to alert drivers of the upcoming intersection. • The updated application has removed the originally proposed left turn out of MACAA Drive to match the existing conditions (“No Left Turn” sign out of MACAA Drive). The proposed improvements show a left turn out of MACAA Drive onto Park Street. The Traffic Engineer considers this not ideal due to the crest in the hill and notes should this PUD Development Plan get approved, the left turn could be removed per the Traffic Engineer requiring it under site plan review. • Installation of the left turn lane to the south provides room to provide a landscaped island to the north. • The north side crosswalk has been moved back to the south location (as requested by neighbors) and flashing beacons with pushbuttons are proposed, which provides greater pedestrian safety. There may be additional opportunity through the site plan process to enhance this crossing further with a rapid flashing beacon, which would provide greater pedestrian safety in this sensitive area. Currently, there is no rapid flashing beacon proposed. By Right Comparison The site was preliminarily evaluated for developable land after removing critical slopes and roadway needed to provide access and it was found that approximately 25-30 SFD could be built on the site. This would generate approximately 366 trips per day versus the proposed 486 trips per day. The nature of single family homes versus the combination of the senior living facility and MACAA would have very minimal difference on the peak hour traffic as the difference both in the morning and afternoon peaks are single digit vehicles (5 and 4 respectively). Conclusion The City Traffic Engineer concludes the following: • While there will be an increase in daily trips from existing conditions (MACAA operations: 86 trips per day) to what is proposed in the PUD Development Plan (Senior Living Facility + MACAA operations: 486 trips per day), much of this traffic will be due to staff for the senior living facility that will occur in off peak hours creating less of an impact to existing traffic patterns along Park Street. 9 • The project’s approximated trips compared to a potential by-right scenario have minimal difference, specifically peak hour morning and afternoon trips (the difference of both am/pm peak hours are in the single digits: 5 and 4 respectively). • The proposed improvements to the intersection will benefit sight distance and provide increased pedestrian connectivity and increased pedestrian safety via the south crosswalk location and proposed beacons. • Improvements generally comply with the Streets That Work Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood A Street Typology; however, the proposal does not account for a climbing bike lane along Park Street, where bicycle facilities are listed as the highest priority element within the Neighborhood A Street Typology. Z.O. Sec. 34-42(a) 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis The Subject Properties are currently zoned R-1, where 1025 Park Street also has a Special Use Permit for a community education center to operate MACAA. All by- right, provisional, and special uses allowed within this zoning district are found in Sec. 34-420 – Use Matrix - Residential zoning district, where single-family detached housing is the most common of these uses. Existing Uses Address Zone Use 1021 Park Street R-1 Single-Family House 1023 Park Street R-1 Single-Family House (Stone House) 1025 Park Street R-1 with SUP for private Existing MACAA facility site school/education facility (community education center) The Subject Properties’ current zoning (R-1) limits residential uses to single-family detached dwellings (SFD), which may contain interior or exterior accessory dwelling units, limited to 1 SFD per 8,125 square foot lot effective density 5 DUA. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Properties to remain as 10 Low Density Residential, where the recommended density range provided for Low Density Residential areas is “not to exceed 15 DUA.” The residential density proposed is 16 DUA and exceeds what would be allowed under by-right zoning and the recommended Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential range. Should this PUD be approved, the property would be limited to the following proposed uses found in the PUD Development Plan only. These include the Senior Living Facility (mix of Adult Assisted Living and Independent Living – total 141 units 151 units), Education Facility: Vocational (MACAA operations) and four (4) affordable, age restricted (62+) independent living cottages that are monitored by the Housing Program Coordinator per the proposed proffer statement. Staff finds the proposed density is not consistent with the City’s future Land Use Map; and, further, is not consistent with what is allowed by-right. Staff sees an argument for a higher density than allowed by-right in light of the Subject Properties’ size (9.312 acres), its isolated location (existing tree buffers and heavily wooded slopes on the west side), and the proposed use of a senior living facility having most traffic being generated from its employees; however, staff reserves concern with the proposed density (16 DUA) exceeding what is intended to be the maximum density listed in the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density Residential areas (not to exceed 15 DUA) and the by-right zoning allowance of 5 DUA in light of the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. Staff wants to note the reduction from 151 to 145 units, 4 of which are being proffered as affordable, is an improvement from the original application. While the proposed density is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map or by- right zoning density allowance, the PUD Development Plan contributes to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The PUD Development Plan conforms to the following Land Use goals: Goal 2 – Mixed Use • Creates a unique opportunity for an “intergenerational campus,” where the children of the MACAA programs could interact and have joint programs with the residents of the Senior Living Facility. The proposed public access to the site allows neighborhood residents to enjoy the site’s environmental features and historic Rock Hill Gardens as well provide connection to the John Warner Parkway trail system. • Goal 2.3 Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. The PUD Development Plan conforms to Goal 2.3 by enhancing the MACAA Drive/Davis Ave intersection and proposing public access through an agreement with City Parks and Recreation Department to the historic Rock Hill Gardens and future connectivity to the John Warner Parkway trail system adjacent to Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park. 11 Goal 3 – Public Space • Goal 3.1 Respect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas, including designated flood plain areas, river and streams. The PUD Development Plan stays largely out of the back portion of the site that contains the following significant environmental features: large stand of trees, critical slopes, flood plain, historic Rock Hill Gardens. Instead, the project proposes to retain this area as Open Space and allow for a portion thereof to be dedicated for public access. b. Community Facilities The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis Staff finds that the central location of the Subject Properties would be well serviced by many of the existing community facilities. The applicant notes the proposed project will conform to all applicable fire codes and regulations and will provide appropriate primary and secondary emergency ingress and egress points for fire, police and emergency responders. As part of the PUD Development Plan, the applicant provided (per Sec. 34-517(a)(7-8)) confirmation from Charlottesville’s Fire and Public Utilities Departments that there is adequate fire flow and water/wastewater capacities at the Subject Properties. [The proposed PUD Development Plan notes there are emergency access points of ingress and egress proposed at 1) the primary MACAA Drive entrance off Park Street, 2) access point adjacent to the Stone House along the existing driveway to Park Street with demountable bollards, and 3) the existing 250 Bypass onramp with demountable bollards. The Traffic Engineer and Fire Department have assessed that the two access points off of Park Street are adequate for EMS response and the access point off of 250 is not needed. In addition, the existing access has parts of the original stone wall of the Rock Hill Gardens located on either side as well as existing curb, grass strip and shared use path as a result of the interchange project. Staff has concern that while the applicant has noted to staff in e-mail correspondence that they will no longer propose this as an EMS access point, it is noted as a proposed EMS route on the PUD Development Plan currently proposed. The existing width of the access point (12’) is not wide enough for an emergency vehicle (standard width required is 20’), leaving staff to believe if this were to be used as an access point, the columns of the original wall and existing infrastructure (curb/shared use path) would be at risk. Because staff prefers the original stone wall be preserved and the access point is not needed or usable in its current state, staff is not in support of this EMS access point as shown on the current plan.] 12 UPDATE: The EMS access point originally proposed off of the 250 Bypass, posing risk to the original columns of the Rock Hill Gardens, has been removed. c. Economic Sustainability The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis Staff finds that NMSLC partnering with MACAA to support MACAA and its programs conforms to Goal 3 - Partnerships in the Economic Sustainability Chapter. Staff also finds the PUD Development Plan conforms to Goal 6 – Workforce by creating between 75-85 full and part-time positions associated with NMSLC and retaining 25 positions associated with MACAA operations at the Park Street location. d. Environment The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis Staff finds the PUD Development Plan conforms to Goal 3 – Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement, “protect, increase, and provide an interconnected system of green space and buffers….” The PUD Development Plan includes a Protection Plan (Component 3(h)) where approximately 3.3 acres to the rear of the site that contain critical slopes, heavily wooded areas, Rock Hill Gardens, successional meadow and space for a stormwater garden BMP are called for preservation). [While staff commends the applicant for placing the building structures generally within the existing MACAA building site and preserving many significant environmental features of the site, staff notes there would be an increase in impervious area, shown at approximately 20% on Component 2(b) of the PUD Development Plan. Staff also has concern that the majority of parking is shown as surface parking (impervious area), where a small portion of parking is proposed as permeable paving. Staff has concern there are trees of eight-inch caliper or larger that are proposed to be removed in the area called out to be surface parking and had asked the applicant previously to consider tuck-under parking or a portion thereof, where more of these existing trees could be preserved. In addition, staff does have concern there is discrepancy with the figures listed for ‘Total Tree Canopy Removed’ throughout the PUD Development Plan (See 13 Component 3(f), Component 3(h) and Component 4(a)). There are at least two figures listed (40,000 SF vs. 50,000 SF) that need to be clarified. Should this PUD Development Plan be approved, a tree canopy calculation that lists tree type, number of trees, and canopy per tree will be required during the site plan review process.] UPDATE: The impervious area has been reduced from 20% to 15%. The applicant in response to the concern of the amount of surface parking has reduced the amount of surface parking spaces from 164 to 140 and increased the amount of proposed permeable parking spaces from 33 to 47 spaces. In addition, the Protection Plan proposes to relocate a portion of the existing trees of 8” caliper or greater to other locations on-site (See Component 3h of the PUD Development Plan, Attachment 2). Please note the Total Tree Canopy to remain (SF) does not reflect potential canopy preserved from relocation of trees. The applicant has also clarified the Tree Canopy Removed figure at 50,000 SF. 14 Current stormwater regulations will prevent the subject properties from discharging additional stormwater above current levels. A detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan will be required at site plan review should the PUD be approved. PUD approval does not relieve the applicant from the responsibility of adhering to and meeting all federal, state and local design standard requirements prior to final site plan approval. e. Housing The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis Staff finds the PUD Development Plan contributes to the following Housing goals: Goal 2 – Maintain & Improve Housing Stock • Goal 2.5 “…providing support to programs and organizations serving the homeless and near-homeless population.” Part of the MACAA program offers housing and intensive case management for families facing homelessness in the community. Goal 7 – Design Options • “Offer a range of housing options to meet the needs of Charlottesville’s residents, including those presently underserved” By 2030, residents of Virginia who are 65 and older are approximated to double to 1.8 million and grow to 19% of the overall population.1 Residents who are 65 and older currently make up approximately 9.2% of Charlottesville’s population.2 It is staff’s opinion the PUD Development Plan provides a type of housing the Charlottesville can benefit from. [However, there was discussion at the April 5, 2017 preliminary meeting with Councilors Wes Bellamy & Kathy Galvin in attendance over potential partnerships that would enable a portion of the senior living units 1 Cai, Qian, “Virginia’s Diverse and Growing Older Population,” The Virginia Newsletter (Vol. 8, No. 2), April 2009, < http://www.coopercenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/vanl0409.pdf> 2 US Census Burea, 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates 15 to be subsidized at a more affordable rate. This was not indicated as part of the proposed PUD Development Plan.] Update: The applicant has proffered two (2) newly constructed duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) independent living cottages affordable to households earning 80% of AMI, this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting. In addition, the applicant has proffered a donation of $75,000 to the City’s Affordable Housing fund. f. Transportation The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). Staff Analysis Staff finds the PUD Development Plan contributes to Goal 1 – Complete Streets in the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Plan featured on Component 3(b) of the PUD Development Plan depicts improvements that conform to the Neighborhood A Street Typology Design Guidelines found in the Streets That Work Plan. The improvements include: a newly constructed 5’ sidewalk, 4’ curbside buffer strip along MACAA Drive and street trees every 40 feet. The proposal does not include a 4’ curbside buffer along Park Street in order to maintain adequate sight line. The proposal includes a raised, landscaped median strip along Park Street. However, the proposal does not account for a climbing bike lane along Park Street, where bicycle facilities are listed as the highest priority element within the Neighborhood A Street Typology. A climbing lane should be incorporated with the pedestrian refuge. Staff supports the increased pedestrian connectivity throughout the site, specifically the public access piece of the proposal. [However, the PUD Development Plan does not show a connection from the existing 250 Bypass shared use path to the internal walkways within the site that connect to Park Street. This access would be required during site plan review should the PUD Development Plan be approved.] Update: The PUD Development Plan now calls for a pedestrian connection from the existing 250 Bypass shared use path to the internal walkways within site (See Component 2b, 3a). [Staff is concerned the PUD Development Plan only partially contributes to Goal 5 – Parking, to “provide parking to adequately meet demand and support economic vitality without sacrificing aesthetics, while minimizing environmental impacts and accommodating pedestrians, bicycles, transit users and disabled individuals.” While the proposal provides adequate parking spaces, staff has concern with the majority of the parking being provided as surface parking, where it was suggested by Staff and Council members to consider tuck-under parking.] Update: The applicant has 16 indicated after exploring tuck-under parking that this would not be financially feasible; however, efforts to address the concern has reduced the overall parking spaces from 164 to 144. The applicant justifies the reduction by stating the MACAA parking lot will be shared with senior living facility staff and visitors during MACAA’s off hours (MACAA’s operating hours are 7:15am-3:00pm). In addition, the applicant has increased the amount of permeable parking spots from 33 to 47 spaces. Staff believes the increased permeable paving locations are intentional as they are in close proximity to the proposed courtyards to the west and existing tree cover to the south. Staff believes that while the plan still contains a high number of parking spaces due to the scale of use, the reduced parking combined with the increase in permeable parking spaces is an improvement from the original application. Bicycle Parking is also not identified on the PUD Development Plan and would be required per Sec. 34-881 as part of the site plan review should the PUD Development Plan be approved. g. Historic Preservation & Urban Design The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the applicant’s Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance on Sheet N2 of the PUD Development Plan (Attachment 2). The applicant has also provided a history of the Rock Hill Gardens (Sheet H1 of the PUD Development Plan). Staff Analysis Staff finds certain elements of the proposed PUD Development Plan are consistent with the Historic Preservation and Urban Design goals of the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposal is largely centered around preserving existing mature landscape to the rear portion of the Subject Properties, preserving the historic Rock Hill Gardens, and refurbishing the existing Stone House (1021 Park Street). [In addition, the PUD Development Plan includes Architectural Design Guidelines (Sheet G1 of the PUD Development Plan) for the MACAA school building and senior living facility in efforts to provide a context-sensitive design. While staff believes the scale of the proposed MACAA school building (2-story; maximum height 35’), the Independent Living Cottages (maximum height 35’), and the existing Stone House are context sensitive (located appropriately to front on Park Street and adjacent to existing single-family residences), staff has concern with the scale of the proposed senior living facility being proposed at 4-5 stories (75’ maximum height) when the surrounding properties zoned R-1 have a by-right maximum height of 35’. Staff does understand that given its location, the existing tree lines and grade would help mitigate the transition of this larger building; however, there is concern with the scale of the building in comparison to the surrounding area.] Update: The applicant has reduced the senior living facility by a full story, where the maximum height is 55’. In addition, the applicant has provided more detail on proposed materials of the 17 building to break up the massing. Please see Sheet G1 of the PUD Development Plan for details. Staff notes this is an improvement from the 75’ maximum height and believes the building, now that it is articulated differently, will be transition better given the location (existing tree lines and grade). The PUD Development Plan includes a Protection Plan (Component 3(h)) which specifically calls out the preservation of the historic Rock Hill Gardens, contributing to Goal 6, “provide effective protection to the City of Charlottesville’s historic resources.” The PUD Development Plan notes “Potential Public Open Space” as part of the Land Use Plan (Component 2(b)), where it notes there will be a “joint-use agreement between NMSLC and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department” for public access to the Rock Hill Gardens. This would likely be in form of a trail easement, the details of which would be worked out during the site plan review process should the PUD Development Plan be approved. Parks and Recreation staff has already had preliminary discussions with the applicant about the idea of opening this area up to the public for connectivity and access to the Rock Hill Gardens and are supportive of the joint-use agreement. [Staff does want to point out that on the Protection Plan (Component 3(h)), there is a note which states “This area may be included in a “joint use agreement” with the City defined for public access.” Staff’s only concern is the language on this sheet differs from the Land Use Plan provided and could be interpreted in the future as something that isn’t required as part of the PUD Development Plan.] Update: The language on Component 3(h) has been changed to “This area will be included in a “joint use agreement.” Staff believes preserving the Rock Hill Gardens and opening them to the public for access is a vital part of this PUD Development Plan for resource protection. During the Interchange project, the City compiled a treatment plan for the Rock Hill Gardens as part of the Section 106 process (federal funds on a historic property) which notes the gardens are eligible to be listed on the National Register (http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=33962). However, the Rock Hill Gardens are currently not listed and the PUD Development Plan provides definitive protection over this historic resource. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s furtherance of the general welfare of the entire community is provided in the applicant’s narrative statement. Staff Analysis Overall, staff agrees the concept of providing a senior living facility with the addition of four (4) affordable, age restricted units in a central location to serve the aging population in 18 conjunction with sustaining MACAA, which provides a number of services to the community (Head Start, Hope House, Project Discovery and Rural Outreach), is a benefit to Charlottesville. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; The applicant has provided information on the factors that lead to a request to rezone the subject properties form R-1 to a PUD in the Narrative section of their application (Sheet N1 of the PUD Development Plan). Staff Analysis Staff finds the proposed uses of a senior living facility and MACAA are both assets to the Charlottesville community given the aging population and the programs run by MACAA that serve facets of the community in need. In addition, staff is aware the partnership between NMSLC and MACAA will sustain MACAA where otherwise MACAA might not be able to continue given their financial situation. As stated before, staff agrees with the overall concept paired with the uniqueness of the site it would locate on; [however, has concerns with scale, density and aspects of the layout (e.g. amount of surface parking, elements of intersection design) in relation to the surrounding residential neighborhood.] Update: Staff believes the scale of the building and the parking improvements (reduced number and increase in permeable parking spots) is an improvement to the overall layout of the site. Staff reserves concern with the density of the project; however, believes the uniqueness of the site (approximately 9 acres in size, somewhat of an isolated location with its grade and tree lines) will provide a buffer to the surrounding neighborhood, improving the transition. 4. When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The location of the subject properties is currently served by existing public utilities and facilities. As part of the PUD Development Plan, the applicant provided per Sec. 34- 517(a)(7-8) confirmation from Charlottesville’s Fire Department and Public Utilities Department that there is adequate fire flow and water and wastewater capacities at the Subject Properties. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Staff believes the overall concept of the PUD Development Plan as an “intergenerational campus” is appropriate for inclusion in the proposed zoning district. More detailed analysis provided in the following section: PUD Considerations. 19 PUD Considerations The applicant’s own analysis of the objectives listed as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district (Sec. 34-491) are included on Sheet N3 of the PUD Development Plan. Staff Analysis In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: (1) To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; On Objective 1: Staff concludes that the applicant does meet this PUD objective. Strict application of the zoning would not allow for a larger senior living facility (R-1 allows for up to 8 Adult Assisted Living Residents) in conjunction with MACAA, preserving the Head Start and other programs that serve low-income families throughout the region. In addition, the proposed concept of the “intergenerational campus” is centered largely around preserving the environmental features located on the back of the property, including the preservation of and creating public access to the Rock Hill Gardens, which otherwise could be altered by a private property owner. The proposal includes preservation of the existing Stone House at 1021 Park Street, which currently has no overlay protection. In addition, the proposal provides connection to the existing John Warner Parkway trail, Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park. It is staff’s opinion that current zoning would create a lesser quality site layout as the zoning designations would not support the opportunity presented in the PUD Development Plan, and rather, would promote a future development of single-family dwellings, in which the Rock Hill Gardens and existing Stone House aren’t protected and would not necessarily be preserved. The environmental features of the back portion of the property do have some protection as a developer would be required to apply for a Critical Slope Waiver if the proposed development disturbed any portion of the critical slope area; however, the future trail allowing public access to the Rock Hill Gardens and connections to the John Warner Parkway trail, Schenk’s Branch and McIntire Park would not be required in a by-right scenario. (2) To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. On Objective 2: Staff concludes that the applicant does overall meet this PUD objective. The applicant has proposed an environmentally sensitive development in the sense that the applicant has located the buildings within the existing MACAA operation building site, some of which front closer to the Park Street. The location of the buildings is in efforts to stay out of the preserved natural areas (3.30) at the back of the site which contain critical slopes, heavily wooded areas and 20 the Rock Hill Gardens. The PUD Development Plan depicts 58.92% of the site as Open Space to include the preserved natural areas (3.30 Acres) at the rear of the property. [However, staff does want to note it has a few comments in regards to the arrangement of proposed buildings on the building site. Staff would have liked to see more of an effort made to arrange the parking in such a way that it was more environmentally sensitive (use of “tuck-under” parking), where more of the existing trees of eight-inch caliper or greater located where the surface parking is proposed could be preserved.] Update: Staff believes that while the plan still contains a high number of parking spaces due to the scale of use, the reduced parking combined with the increase in permeable parking spaces is an improvement from the original application. (3) To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; On Objective 3: Staff concludes the applicant does meet this PUD objective. The applicant’s proposal provides a mix of independent, assisted and memory care units within the senior living facility that will serve different needs within the aging community of Charlottesville. (4) To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; On Objective 4: Staff concludes that the applicant does meet this PUD objective. Though there are no single-family dwellings proposed, the applicant has proposed a development plan with buildings clustered closer to Park Street and largely within the existing MACAA building site in order to preserve the 3.30 acres of natural areas at the back of the site. (5) To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; On Objective 5: Staff concludes that the applicant does meet this PUD objective. The proposed development plan provides a unique concept of an “intergenerational campus” that locates a senior living facility and the MACAA operations/school in the same place, where the applicant states shared programs will occur between the NMSLC and MACAA. Staff is eager to learn more about the future shared programming as these events would make the site a true “Intergenerational Campus.” The PUD Development Plan indicates a parking/event space designed with pavers, landscaping and lighting to encourage during off hours shared evening events. In addition, the site is unified through close proximity and connected walkways. (6) To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; On Objective 6: Staff concludes the applicant has improved its application to does not meet this PUD objective. The PUD Development Plan includes more detailed Architectural Design Guidelines (Sheet G1 of the PUD Development Plan) for the MACAA school building and senior living facility in 21 efforts to provide a context-sensitive design. Staff believes the scale of the proposed MACAA school building (2-story; maximum height 35’), the affordable, age-restricted Independent Living Cottages (maximum height 35’), and the existing Stone House are context sensitive and locate appropriately to front on Park Street (adjacent to existing single-family residences). Staff believes the senior living facility is improved in overall scale now that it has been reduced a full story, with a new maximum height of 55’. The surrounding properties zoned R-1 have a by-right maximum height of 35’. Staff does understand that given its location, the existing tree lines and grade would help mitigate appearance of the 4-story building and provide for a transition; however, staff still has concern with the building in light of the building’s proposed scale and density. The proposed density (16 DUA) exceeds what would be allowed under by-right zoning (5 DUA) and the recommended Comprehensive Plan Low Density Residential range (not to exceed 15 DUA). (7) To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; On Objective 7: Staff concludes that the applicant does significantly contribute to this PUD objective. The applicant is preserving 3.3 acres of the back portion of the site that include critical slopes, floodplain, large stand of trees and the historic Rock Hill Gardens. (8) To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and On Objective 8: Staff concludes the applicant meets this PUD objective and has included a unified architectural style internally to the development as shown in the Architectural Design Guidelines (Sheet G1 of the PUD Concept Plan). The structures closer to Park Street are of most concern in their relation to the adjacent properties and staff believes their scale and style will coordinate appropriately with the adjacent single-family residences. (9) To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; On Objective 9: Staff concludes that the applicant does meet this PUD objective. The proposed development plan provides a shared use plaza/park space (permeable paver area) for NMSLC/MACAA events and gatherings, internal and external walkways available for use by the potential users and neighboring residents, an area dedicated for a future public trail allowing access to the historic Rock Hill Gardens and connection to the John Warner Parkway trail system, 5’ sidewalks along the perimeter of the site and a realigned intersection with pedestrian refuge for crossing Park Street from Davis Ave. In addition, the PUD Development Plan now shows a connection from the existing 250 Bypass shared use path to the internal walkways within the site that connect to Park Street. (10) To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle- alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. 22 On Objective 10: Staff concludes that the applicant does meet this PUD objective. The proposed development improves the Park Street/Davis Ave/MACAA Drive intersection and both NMSLC and MACAA use their own multi-person transit vans and JAUNT. The applicant has also expressed should the PUD Development Plan be approved, they would inquire about a Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus route to the site. Bicycle Parking is not identified on the PUD Development Plan and would be required per Sec. 34-881 as part of the site plan review should the PUD Development Plan be approved. Proffers The applicant did not provide a proffer statement as part of this application. The updated application includes a proffer statement proffering the following: (i) Providing two (2) duplexes (4 units total) of age restricted (62+) housing affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI), this effort to be coordinated with the Housing Program Coordinator on compliance and reporting; and, (ii) Donation of $75,000 to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing fund. Public Comments Received Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a Community Meeting on July 17, 2017. There have been several neighborhood residents who have sent separate written correspondence to NDS that are attached to this report (Attachment 4). General comments from the public regarding the PUD Rezoning request are: • Concern around increased in traffic generated from the senior living facility • Missing portion of sidewalk along Davis not included as part of intersection improvements • Desire for applicant to maintain the already established crosswalk that runs from south side of Davis to south side of MACAA Drive Update: Applicant has removed the crosswalk from the north side and relocated to south side at neighbors request (with the addition of flashing beacons) • The proposed intersection showing a left turn onto Park Street out of MACAA Drive where currently there is a “No Left Turn” sign Update: The proposed intersection improvements have eliminated the left turn and proposed a pork chop to force traffic right • Concern around noise generated from the use (e.g. dumpsters, food deliveries) • Desire for a public or commercial space (café or restaurant) in the development for neighborhood residents to gather • Desire for the site to remain single-family residential in neighbor to maintain the neighborhood feel. Concern the duplexes don’t fit with the adjacent single-family residences. For more detailed public comment, please see correspondence in Attachment 4. 23 Staff Recommendation Overall, staff finds the proposed PUD Development Plan provides a unique opportunity for an “intergenerational campus” that provides housing for the growing 65+ population, sustains MACAA, an organization that provides programs that meet many of the City’s goals in serving the low-income community and commits to providing four (4) affordable, age restricted (65+) units on- site in coordination with the City’s Housing Coordinator. In addition, the concept layout demonstrates efforts to use environmentally sensitive design by utilizing the existing building site in order to preserve the environmental and historic features of the site (environmental features at rear of site: critical slopes, heavily wooded areas, meadows, Rock Hill Gardens, flood plain), which otherwise might not be preserved in a by-right scenario. The applicant has demonstrated their intent to improve connectivity and access through the proposed improvements at the Park/Davis Ave/MACAA Drive intersection, many of which comply with Streets That Work, and the proposed future public access via an agreement with City Parks and Recreation to allow for public access to the historic Rock Hill Gardens and the existing John Warner Parkway trail system. Staff believes the designation of a PUD allows for the unique, integrated mix of uses that would be a benefit to this community and a site layout that is, for the most part, cohesive and environmentally sensitive. Staff would like to stress that overall, they are supportive of the concept. Many of staff’s previous concerns (listed below) have been addressed in the updated application; however, there are concerns that remain. Please see the original list of staff’s concerns below with updates so that Planning Commission can take these into consideration when making their recommendation: 1. The proposed intersection improvements (Component 3(b) of the PUD Development Plan) show a left turn out of MACAA Drive onto Park Street (existing conditions: “No Left Turn” sign out of MACAA Drive). The Traffic Engineer considers this not ideal due to the crest in the hill and notes should this PUD Development Plan get approved, the Traffic Engineer can require the left turn be removed under site plan review. The application no longer includes the left turn out of MACAA Drive and has proposed to install a “pork-chop” to direct traffic right. 2. The PUD Development Plan does not show a connection from the existing 250 Bypass shared use path to the internal walkways within the site that connect to Park Street. This access could provide an integral connection to the greater City trail systems and staff notes this would be required during site plan review should the PUD Development Plan be approved per Sec. 34- 897. The application includes allowance for pedestrian access from the existing 250 Bypass shared use path to the internal walkways within the site connecting to Park Street. 3. The proposed density of 16 DUA exceeds the by-right density (effective density for R-1: 5 DUA and the Comprehensive Plan density range for Low Density Residential, where for those areas it states to “not exceed 15 DUA.” While staff sees an argument for a higher density than allowed by-right in light of the Subject Properties’ size (9.312 acres), its isolated location (existing tree buffers and heavily wooded slopes on the west side), and the proposed use of a senior living facility having most traffic being generated from its employees, staff has concern with the proposed density (16 DUA) exceeding the by-right density (5 DUA) and what is intended to be the maximum density listed in the Comprehensive Plan for Low Density Residential areas (not to exceed 15 DUA). Staff still holds its concern with the propose density, 24 but wants to note the new layout and reduction of height in the proposed senior living facility building is an improvement from the original application in countering the impact of the number of units proposed. 4. The proposed massing and scale of the senior living facility, reduced from 5 stories to 4 stories with a maximum height of 55’ is an improvement from the original 75’ maximum height in comparison to the surrounding neighborhood that contains single-family residences not to exceed 35’ in height per their R-1 zoning. Staff notes that the size of the building is arguably more hidden given the location of the site and the preserved wooded areas and the location of the building situated back behind the three structures that front on Park Street (proposed not exceed the existing by-right height of 35’). While staff believes the updated proposed massing and scale would be better hidden behind the tree-line and provide for a better transition than the original proposed massing and scale, staff still has concern the scale is larger than what would be allowed in the current zoning and in light of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. [Staff has concern with the amount of surface parking for the following: resulted loss of some of the existing trees of eight-inch caliper or greater and there being more innovative and environmentally sensitive approaches (“tuck-under” parking) that might not have been explored.] Staff believes the applicant has made a considerable effort to address this concern providing for an improved layout, where the total number of parking spaces provided has been reduced 20 spaces and there is an increase in permeable parking spaces. The applicant has also noted relocation of trees that are eight-inch caliper or greater to other places on-site to help preserve more trees. While staff believes the scale (number of units) is the driving force behind the large number of parking spaces, where a smaller-scale senior living facility would require less parking, staff believes this is an improvement from the original application and commends the applicant’s efforts to utilize shared sparking and permeable paving. 6. Staff has concern with the proposed EMS access point off of 250 Bypass being that the recently constructed shared use path as part of the Interchange project blocks that access of and that part of the original Rock Hill Garden walls are on either side of the existing access, putting them at risk. Traffic Engineering and Fire Department have confirmed the two EMS access points off of Park are adequate. It is of staff’s opinion this should not be an EMS access point and should remain permanently closed. Staff does not support the proposed EMS access point as shown on the PUD Development Plan currently proposed plan. Staff will note the applicant has stated through e-mail correspondence the EMS point would be removed and there would be no change; however, staff has to evaluate the proposed PUD Development Plan as shown. The EMS access point off of the 250 Bypass has been removed. 7. In light of the public comment received, staff would like to note it supports maintaining the existing crosswalk that runs from south side of Davis to south side of MACAA Drive. The applicant has proposed to maintain existing crosswalk that runs from south side of Davis to south side of MACAA Drive and has proposed flashing beacons for improved pedestrian safety. 25 8. Regarding the “joint use agreement between NMSLC and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation” for the public access to the Rock Hill Gardens, staff is slightly unclear about the note provided on the Protection Plan (Component 3(h)), which states “This area may be included in a “joint use agreement” with the City defined for public access.” Staff’s only concern is the language on this sheet differs from the Land Use Plan provided (Component 2(b)) and could be interpreted in the future as something that isn’t required as part of the PUD Development Plan. The applicant has clarified the discrepancy in language regarding the area called that is called out for a joint use agreement between NMSLC and Charlottesville Parks and Recreation for public access to the Rock Hill Gardens, noting that the area will be under a joint-use agreement. 9. Staff has concern there is discrepancy with the figures listed for ‘Total Tree Canopy Removed’ throughout the PUD Development Plan (See Component 3(f), Component 3(h) and Component 4(a)). There are at least two figures listed (40,000 SF vs. 50,000 SF) that need to be clarified. Should this PUD Development Plan be approved, a tree canopy calculation that lists tree type, number of trees, and canopy per tree will be required during the site plan review process. The applicant has clarified the Total Tree Canopy Removed figure as being 50,000 SF. Attachments (1) Application (2) PUD Development Plan, dated August 28, 2017 (3) Application Rejection Letters dated May 8 and June 5, 2017 (4) Public Comments Received (5) PC Preliminary Discussion Report, dated April 11, 2017 (6) PC Informal Public Hearing Staff Report, August 8, 2017: https://www.charlottesville.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=55723 Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend the approval of this application to rezone the properties located on Tax Map 47, Parcels 7.1, 8, 11 from R-1, and SUP for Community Education Center on Tax Map 47, Parcel 7.1 to PUD, on the basis that the proposal would serve the interests of the general public welfare and good zoning practice. 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone properties located on Tax Map 47, Parcels 7.1, 8, 11 from R-1, and SUP for Community Education Center on Tax Map 47, Parcel 7.1, to PUD for the following reasons: 3. I move to recommend deferral of this application to rezone properties located on Tax Map 47, Parcels 7.1, 8, 11 from R-1, and SUP for Community Education Center on Tax Map 47, Parcel 7.1, to PUD for the following reasons: 26 Attachment 5 Project Site 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Campus Entrance View from Park Street Northbound Vicinity Map MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN Approved by City Council Ordinance dated 2017 MACAA INTERGENERATIONAL EDUCATION CAMPUS 1025 Park Street, Charlottesville, VA 22901 Tax Map Parcels: Address Size Zone Site Survey: Index: City Code Reference: TM-47-7.1 1025 Park Street 7.64 acres R-1 Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. Title Page TM-47-11 1023 Park Street 0.47 acres R-1 663 Berkmar Court Component 1: Survey Plat 34-517(a)(1) TM-47-8 1021 Park Street 0.91 acres R-1 Charlottesville, VA 22901 1(a) Site Survey Total 9.02 acres 434-293-3195 1(b) Adjacent Property Inventory Current Zoning: Land Planning and Landscape Architects: Component 2: Land Use Plan 34-517(a)(4) All Parcels are zoned R-1. In addition, TM-47-7.1 has a SUP that was granted by City Land Planning Design Associates 2(a) Concept Rendering Council on January 4, 1993, allowing MACAA to use the former YMCA Site as a Com- 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B 2(b) Detailed Site Plan, Land Uses and Connections munity Education Center, with the following conditions: Charlottesville, VA 22902 2(c) Proposed Views 1. Administrative approval of the site plan 434-296-2108 Component 3: Infrastructure 34-517(a)(3) 2. A grading and E&S Plan being submitted and approved 3(a) Common Areas and Connecting Circulation 3. The hours of operation shall not exceed 9:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, Civil Engineers: 3(b) Transportation Plan 11:00 p.m. on Friday and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday Collins Engineering 4. All site plan improvements must be implemented within one year of SUP approval 200 Garrett Street, Suite K 3(c) Utilities and Stormwater 5. There shall be physical barriers on access roads during prohibited hours of operation Charlottesville, VA 22902 3(d) Signage Plan 434-293-3719 3(e) Phasing Plan An amendment to the SUP was approved on July 6, 1993 granting a one year trial period 3(f) Existing Conditions and Proposed Land Disturbance P.U.D. Development Plan to eliminate the SUP requirements that there be access from the property onto the Route Architects: 3(g) Site Photograghs 250 Bypass and that the entrance onto Park Street be chained off during prohibited hours GHLA Architects: 3(h) Impacts on Environmental Features of operation. On December 4, 1995 a second amendment was approved allowing perma- 1300 West Randol Mill Road Component 4: Landscape Plan 34-517(a)(5) nent closure of access to the 250 Bypass from 1025 Park Street, and also that MACAA Arlington, TX 76012 4(a) Landscape Plan would not be required to chain off the entrance to 1025 Park Street after hours of operation 817-801-7200 and the hours of operation could not exceed 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and Supplemental Information: Title Page 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. Approval of these amendments was conditioned upon Design and Planning Support: N(1-4) Narrative Statement and Zoning Compliance administrative approval of the site plan. Wassenaar + Winkler G(1) PUD Concept Plan Narrative and Architectural Design Guidelines 200 West 12th Street T(1-4) Park Street Traffic Impact Analysis Proposed Zoning: Waynesboro, VA 22980 S(1-2) Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) 540-941-3567 A(1-3) Typical Senior Housing Unit Exhibits H(1-3) Rock Hill Property History, Locust Grove Neighborhood History Owner/Developer: New Millennium Senior Living Communities, LLC 2917 Penn Forest Blvd. Roanoke, VA 24018 August 28, 2017 540-776-7458 ) S67 °19' 13"E 15.8 4' IF ) TMP 47-6 SLA VISA AND TAN JA MILA NOV IC D.B. 1049 P. 240 CO D.B. ROC 240 K P. 107 PLA T WAL L 460 WOODLINE ROC K " TW 454.30 Y WAL GW L 5 461 44 UP , OHE BW 458.03 462 0 " 45 " 459.55 " " TW 452.07 463 BW 456.99 E OH " 461.35 464 465 S67 °19' 13"E 200. 00' T-16 062 587 WOODLINE 5 S 45 " 462.15 T-16 N 3903 0623 365. 24 5860 0 N 390 E 1149 337 1244 7.61 460 .916 500 00 E 1149 Z 464 .87 1080 .160 00 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Z 454. 20 " 466.99 467 " 462.63 S BW 458.14 " WAL K SLA TE 465 OHE Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 " SLA TE PKN F " 465.86 464.33 WAL SLA K TE UP A27 7408 ASP 24.56 4 HAL ' WAL T " 468.24 K Y ) DRI FF VE " FF Y , 3 GW' Y " 468 S 466. 17 465 OHT .31 462.03 " 466.66 8.86' 440 " Pro " 24.06' EM FF 464.40 ROC ROC ) K K 465 FF .25 30"R EF " per 30" F WAL UP A33 OUT TM 16.56' CRO L 010 P P 47- 474. 50 3.03' 7 91 OHT " , 33.62 ' ty L LOT ' 10.96 3 3.5 47 AC RE PLA S (RE NTE R CO 3.14' 4.80' ine RD PLAT ) 464.83 469 463 3.70' " 15.25' S02°14'39"W 53.61' 1.00' 2 STOR Y FRAM 5.63' E " W/ BASE MENT 464.48 #1105 " ROC K 3.80' 4.60' TW 470.29 19.61 3.99' ' OUT CRO P GM 0 47 FF " 465.7 3 SLA TE ) 475 .31 " 465.28 " WAL K FF LL WA " CK RO 466 .17 CSW 469.61 15.11' " 26.68' BRICK WALK " BW 460.85 TS 466.57 " 1.58' 440 465 2 46 7.62' ) IF ROC K 1.69' WAL " L 469.88 " ROC 1.50' 463 8.67' K TW 468.94 " 469.17 OUT CRO " P 445 " 470.21 465.40 8.68' 469 4 46 N68 18.46' °28'4 466 4"W 433. TW 471.10 55' PLA NTE R " 466 467 450 SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROC K WAL L - RETAINING D.B. 360 P. S05°09'35"W 45.19' 372 WALL BW 462.34 " SLA TE " 469.64 455 WAL K T-3 N 3903 258. 9450 0 E 1149 1279 .437 468 WV S 00 Z 468. PLA 37 NTE R FH * B * 27.81' WV " 466.32 PKN F EXIS COT TING TAG ) E FF SLA ) TE S ' 16.96 TMP 470 WAL 47-7 .69 K .1 MON 1 STOR TICE Y BRICK LLO ARE A COM 0 MUN 46 ITY AND FRAM 468 ACT E ION " AGE NCY 9.28' 25.95' INST #1103 .# 2012 0035 35 PLA T GM D.B. 604 P. 568 ) D.B. 604 ASP P. 570 HAL TW 471.21 T PLA " T CSW DRIV E SLA TE 8.89' 467 WAL K 18.64' " TW 471.21 ROC PLA K WAL NTE R L ) PF T-16 0613 91 465 N 3903 205. 2930 0 E 1149 1215 .454 00 VARIABLE Z 467. PARK STREET 86 WIDTH R/W OHE ) WM 468.03 S05°50'46"W S 59.14' 461.22 4" VCP " BOA IN RD FEN 466 CE " 466.75 , SSM H UP TOP E PKN F 467 .11 ) OH T TW 470.84 " APPRO XIMAT E VEPCO EASEM ENT ) 8" VCP OUT D.B. S 460.13 172 P. 360 0 47 , T.M. 47-7.1 UP OHE T.M. 47-8 293. 81' N68 °42'3 2"W ASP HAL T DRI " 466.19 VE Zoned R-1 ne S05°53'23"W Zoned R-1 50.61' Li CSW 470 OHT ty TW 469.51 469 " ) er IF S11 °58' 55"W 23.5 6' " 466.54 op 468.93 " Pr OHT ) WM ) IF " 469.10 " 468.17 E OH Ma t caa Stree Driv e MACAA Intergenerational Park Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Dav T.M. 47-11 is A ve. Zoned R-1 Parcel 47-7.1, 1025 Park Street Owned by Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), Zoned R-1. Rt A SUP was granted by City Council on January 4, 1993, allowing MACAA to use the former YMCA Site as a Community Education .2 Center, with the following conditions: Topograhic Survey of Tax Map 47 Parcels 8 50 1. Administrative approval of the site plan and 11 and a portion of Tax Map 47 Parcel By 2. A grading and E&S Plan being submitted and approved 7.1 located on Park Street and U.S. Route pa 250 Bypass, City of Charlottesville, Virginia. ss 3. The hours of operation shall not exceed 9:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday, 11:00 p.m. on Friday and 10:00 p.m. on Saturday Date: March 13, 2017 4. All site plan improvements must be implemented within one year of SUP approval P.U.D. Development Plan Contour Interval = 2’ 5. There shall be physical barriers on access roads during prohibited hours of operation Datum: NAVD88 e An amendment to the SUP was approved on July 6, 1993 granting a one year trial period to eliminate the SUP requirements that Lin there be access from the property onto the Route 250 Bypass and that the entrance onto Park Street be chained off during prohibited ty Survey of Parcels 47-8, 47-11 and 47-7.1 er hours of operation. On December 4, 1995 a second amendment was approved allowing permanent closure of access to the 250 By- performed by: Survey Plat - op pass from 1025 Park Street, and also that MACAA would not be required to chain off the entrance to 1025 Park Street after hours of Pr Roger W. Ray & Associates, Inc. operation and the hours of operation could not exceed 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Satur- Site Survey 663 Berkmar Court Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 day. Approval of these amendments was conditioned upon administrative approval of the site plan. 434-293-3195 Land Surveyors - Land Planners The PUD shall supersede the SUP, however condition #1 of the SUP amendment will remain so that there will continue to be no pub- lic access from the property onto the Route 250 Bypass; just EMS access. Survey of Parcel 47.7 provided by owner. Component 1(a) Parcel 47-8, 1021 Park Street All other topography outside survey area Owned by Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA), Zoned R-1 shows City of Charlottesville Planemetric August 28, 2017 Parcel 47-11, 1023 Park Street 0’ 40’ 80’ Interchange As Builts. Owned by 1023 Park Street, LLC, Zoned R-1 Scale: 1”= 40’-0” 01 - Parcel: 470005000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1115 Park Street T.M. 470007000 02 - Parcel: 470004000, Zone R-1, Address: 1117 Park Street Address: 1105 Park Street 03 - Parcel: 470051100, Zone R-1, Address: 1126 Park Street Owner: Nicholas Dominick & Alpern Cafferillo, Elaine Connor 04 - Parcel: 470051000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1122 Park Street Lot Size: 3.547 acres 05 - Parcel: 470051200, Zone: R-1, Address: 606 North Avenue Building Height: 3 story 06 - Parcel: 470051300, Zone: R-1, Address: 608 North Avenue Zone: R-1H 07 - Parcel: 470051400, Zone: R-1, Address: 610 North Avenue 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B 08 - Parcel: 470051500, Zone R-1, Address: 612 North Avenue Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 500 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 ’ Pr 09 - Parcel: 470051600, Zone: R-1, Address: 614 North Avenue ope rty 10 - Parcel: 470006000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1109 Park Street Offs et 11 - Parcel: 470050000, Zone: R-1 with IPP Overlay, T.M. 450001000 (McIntire Park) Address: 1112 Park Street Address: 345 250 Bypass 12 - Parcel: 470007000, Zone: R-1 with IPP Overlay, Owner: City of Charlottesville Address: 1105 Park Street Lot Size: 145.179 acres 13 - Parcel: 470049000, Zone: R-1 with IPP Overlay, Building Height: NA 2 3 Address: 1108 Park Street ch Zone: MLTP 14 - Parcel: 470047000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1106 Park Street ran 1 15 - Parcel: 470008000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1021 Park Street 4 sB 67 5 16 - Parcel: 470046000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1100 Park Street y kw nk 6 17 - Parcel: 470047100, Zone: R-1, Address: 605 Davis Avenue rP he 7 18 - Parcel: 470047200, Zone: R-1, Address: 607 Davis Avenue Sc ne 8 19 - Parcel: 470047300, Zone: R-1, Address: 609 Davis Avenue ar 10 W 20 - Parcel: 470047400, Zone: R-1, Address: 613 Davis Avenue 9 hn 11 21 - Parcel: 470011000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1023 Park Street Jo 22 - Parcel: 470045200, Zone: R-1, Address: 1012 Park Street P.U 23 - Parcel: 470045300, Zone: R-1, Address: 604 Davis Avenue .D . Pr 12 24 - Parcel: 470045400, Zone: R-1, Address: 608 Davis Avenue ope 25 - Parcel: 470045500, Zone: R-1, Address: 612 Davis Avenue rty Line 26 - Parcel: 470045600, Zone: R-1, Address: 616 Davis Avenue 13 27 - Parcel: 470012000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1007 Park Street 28 - Parcel: 470045100, Zone: R-1, Address: 1010 Park Street 29 - Parcel: 470013000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1005 Park Street 30 - Parcel: 470044000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1006 Park Street T.M. 47-8 14 31 - Parcel: 470014000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1003 Park Street 32 - Parcel: 470043100, Zone: R-1, Address: 1002 Park Street 15 33 - Parcel: 470015000, Zone: R-1, Address: 1001 Park Street T.M. 47-7.1 34 - Parcel: 470043200, Zone: R-1, Address: 1000 Park Street 35 - Parcel: 470043000, Zone: R-1, Address: 603 Watson Avenue 16 36 - Parcel: 470042000, Zone: R-1, Address: 605 Watson Avenue MACAA Intergenerational T.M. 47-11 37 - Parcel: 470041000, Zone: R-1, Address: 607 Watson Avenue Education Campus 17 38 - Parcel: 470040000, Zone: R-1, Address: 609 Watson Avenue Charlottesville, VA 21 18 39 - Parcel: 470016300, Zone: R-1, Address: 513 250 Bypass 40 - Parcel: 470016200, Zone: R-1, Address: 517 250 Bypass 19 22 41 - Parcel: 470016100, Zone: R-1, Address: 901 Park Street 50 27 42 - Parcel: 470016000, Zone: R-1, Address: 907 Park Street 20 43 - Parcel: 470023000, Zone: R-1, Address: 600 Watson Avenue 29 28 23 44 - Parcel: 470024000, Zone: R-1, Address: 605 250 Bypass t ee 45 - Parcel: 470024100, Zone: R-1, Address: 602 Watson Avenue 30 24 Str 31 46 - Parcel: 470025000, Zone: R-1, Address: 604 Watson Avenue 25 47 - Parcel: 470026000, Zone: R-1, Address: 606 Watson Avenue rk 48 - Parcel: 470027000, Zone: R-1, Address: 608 Watson Avenue Pa 33 32 26 49 - Parcel: 470028000, Zone: R-1, Address: 620 Watson Avenue 39 40 50 - Parcel: 470017000, Zone: R-1, Address: 0 250 Bypass T.M. 470012000 34 51 - Parcel: 470019000, Zone: R-1, Address: 502 Park Hill Address: 1007 Park Street 42 35 52 - Parcel: 470020100, Zone: R-1, Address: 505 Park Hill Owner: Kathleen Free 51 41 36 53 - Parcel: 470022000, Zone: R-1, Address: 809 Park Street Lot Size: 0.442 acres RT 54 - Parcel: 470021000, Zone: R-1, Address: 807 Park Street 52 .2 55 - Parcel: 470018100, Zone: R-1, Address: 501 Park Hill Building Height: 1 story 55 50 43 37 Zone: R-1 By 56 - Parcel: 470018000, Zone: R-1, Address: 503 Park Hill pa 45 38 57 - Parcel: 470020000, Zone: R-1, Address: 801 Park Street 53 ss 58 - Parcel: 520001000, Zone: R-1, Address: 810 Park Street T.M. 470013000 44 56 46 59 - Parcel: 520003000, Zone: R-1, Address: 806 Park Street Address: 1005 Park Street 60 - Parcel: 520004000, Zone: R-1, Address: 802 Park Street Owner: Daniel L. Buckman 54 61 - Parcel: 520010000, Zone: R-1, Address: 606 250 Bypass Lot Size: 0.475 acres 47 62 - Parcel: 520049200, Zone: R-1, Address: 500 Park Hill Building Height: 1 story 62 57 63 - Parcel: 520049100, Zone: R-1, Address: 504 Park Hill 48 P.U.D. Development Plan Zone: R-1 63 58 T.M. 470014000 64 - Parcel: 520049000, Zone: R-1, Address: 751 Park Street Address: 1003 Park Street T.M. 470016300 59 49 Owner: Jonathan & Marcella Eldridge 65 - Parcel: 520005000, Zone: R-1, Address: 800 Park Street Address: 513 250 Bypass 66 - Parcel: 520006000, Zone: R-1, Address: 605 Lyons Avenue Owner: Bradley R. Taylor 64 Lot Size: 0.501 acres 67 - Parcel: 450001000, Zone: R-1 with PPO Overlay, Lot Size: 0.418 acres 60 61 Building Height: 1 story Address: 345 250 Bypass Survey Plat - Building Height: 1 story 65 Zone: R-1 Adjacent Property Zone: R-1 Development within the PUD Site will comply with Sec. 34-501(b)(1) of City Code and as such, will be harmonious with the character and regulations of Inventory 66 the properties adjacent to and in the neighborhood of the PUD Site. All pro- posed buildings within 75 feet of the R-1 Zoning District shall comply with the building height restrictions of the R-1 Zoning District. (See Sheet N4) Component 1(b) 0’ 100’ 200’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 100’-0” 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Emergency EMS Access Only MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Independent Living Cottage and Sales Office Stormwater Pond Existing Path P.U.D. Development Plan Pedestrian Access Only Land Use Plan - Concept Rendering Component 2(a) 0’ 50’ 100’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 50’-0” Recreational Use Table 14,600 SF Floodplain. 1/3 (4,865 SF) counted towards total Open Space. Uses Acreage OwnershipandUse Floodplain area approximate. Area not mapped by FEMA Potential Public - Open Space 3.30 JointUseAgreementbetweenNMSLCandCharlottesvilleParks&Rec Private - Resident 0.66 NMSLC Critical Slopes (hatch area) defined as per Private - MACAA 0.08 MACAA Sec. 34-1120(b)(2) of City Code Private - Shared Programmed Use 0.07 NMSLCandMACAA 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Public Access will be Pro pe 10’ Minimum Set Back for Parking NMSLC = New Millenium Senior Living Community Note: Specific building height maximums are included Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net rty L Land Use Key on Sheet G1: Architectural Design Guidelines 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 included in Joint Use ine Stormwater Garden Agreement Buildings Building Ht. Gross SF Acreage FAR Assisted Living Entrance, Residential 75’ Max. 165,000 - 200,000 3.79 - 4.59 <35’ height Commercial (Classrooms) 35’ Max. 13,500 - 15,000 0.31 - 0.34 Independent Living Entrance Office Same as exist- 3,800 - 4,500 0.09 - 0.10 ing building 20 Total 192,300 - 219,500 4.41 - 5.04 0.47 - 0.54 0’ Pro Open Space 238,990 5.49 pos ed wn Lan 0.39 do dsc Recreation 17,120 ape Buf Landscape Areas 78,000 1.79 fer 450.40’+ Preserved Natural Areas/ 143,870 3.30 Potential Public Access 1 story potential public access Entrance 200’ 6’-8’ Opaque Fence Loading Shared Use Plaza/Park- 50’ ing for NMSLC/MACAA for Min 438.78’+ imu events and gatherings ne mB Li uild ing Playground ty Set er 4 Story from 4 Story from Bac op Finish Grade Finish Grade k Street Trees and Proposed 2-Story Pr Permeable Sidewalk per S.T.W. MACAA Classrooms Paving 1 story <35’ height Emergency EMS Access Entrance Only, 3’ from property line, Senior Living with removeable bollards Community Existing 2-Story Residence Repurposed for MACAA Potential Public Offices Access Courtyard Reconstructed es o ris t e ory Permeable Low Stone Wall ad st Mac gr 5 Paving aa D Landscape Island MACAA Intergenerational as om Aba rive Pro ndone wn ry n fr per Monument Sign Education Campus d do sto io ty L 4 nsit ine New Entrance. Left-out Charlottesville, VA a Garden Terrace 4 Story from Tr restrictor island on final Walkways connecting Finish Grade Dav site plan, subject to final is A to recreation and open ve. engineering space Pedestrian Beacons Private Healing Monument Sign Garden Pro po Reconstructed Low Stone Wall Retaining Wall sed Critical Slopes (hatch area) La Temporary Sales Office and Pro- nd defined as per Sec. 34- 75’ Minimum Set Back from sca posed Affordable, age-restricted eet Str rk +440.00’ pe 1120(b)(2) of City Code property line for proposed building Bu (62+) Independent Living Cottages; Pa ffe 4 units at 1,300-1,900 sq. sf. each, height to exceed the maximum height r Rt Roof Line Break regulations of the adjoining residential district including garage (<35’ ht). .2 Permeable 10’ existing R-1 sideyard setback 50 50’ Minimum Set Back from property line required Paving to remain. Proposed building shall er By for all non-residential uses 8 residents 42 47,500 sq. ft. NMSLC op Memory Care 30 29,370 sq. ft. NMSLC Pr Memory Care Entrance Residential Density 1-21 DUA/Independent 69 85,420 sq. ft. NMSLC Walkways connecting to recreation and open space Two Family Age-Restricted (62+) Cottage X 4 7,600 sq. ft. 1.93% NMSLC Residential Total 145 145 units min/max. Unit mix typical to development but 10’ Minimum Set Back from property line for all parking areas subject to change based on final assessment of user needs. e Commercial P.U.D. Development Plan Lin Educational Facility: Vocational* By S.U.P. 12,040 sq. ft. 2.97% MACAA ty Offices: Property Management - existing 2,700 sq. ft. 0.67% MACAA er op Open Space/Recreation Pr Playground 3,650 sq. ft./0.08 acres 0.90% MACAA 0’ 40’ 80’ Resident Gardens and Courtyard 13,470 sq. ft./0.31 acres 3.33% NMSLC Land Use Plan - Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Public Access into MACAA Site using Landscaped Areas 79,300 sq. ft./1.82 acres 19.23% NMSLC and MACAA Preserved Natural Areas 143,870 sq. ft/3.30 acres 35.47% NMSLC and City Detailed Site Plan, existing drive, pedestrian only Site Parking Table (includes 1/3 of floodplain area, in compliance (4,865 sq. ft./0.11 acres of floodplain area Land Uses and with City Code Sec. 34-493) counted towards Preserved Natural Areas) Building Use Qty. Parking Use City Ordinance Total Required Parking Spaces Parking Provided Ancillary Uses Connections Parking: Surface parking lots 44,670 sq. ft./1.02 acres 11.37% NMSLC and MACAA Residential Density 1-21 DUA/Independent 69 units* Residential: Single Family 1 space/unit 69 units x 1 space per unit = 69 spaces 69 (includes permeable paver plaza/parking areas) (13,480 sq. ft./0.31 acres permeable plaza/parking areas) Adult Assisted Living > 8 residents 42 beds* Residential: Adult Care - Assisted Living 1 space/3 beds 42 beds / 3 beds per 1 space = 14 spaces 14 Memory Care 30 beds* Residential: Adult Care - Nursing Homes 1 space/4 beds 30 beds / 4 beds per 1 space = 8 spaces 8 General Site Total Staff 30 employees Residential: Adult Care 1 space/staff member 30 staff x 1 space per staff = 30 spaces 19** Total Site Area 393,004 sq. ft./9.022 acres 100.00% Component 2(b) Affordable Housing Cottage Units 4 units Residential: Single Family 1 space/unit 4 units x 1 space per unit = 4 spaces 4 Total Open Space Area 238,990 sq. ft./5.49 acres 58.92% Total Parking 125 114 Total Impervious Area 61,375 sq. ft./1.41 acres 15.46% Educational Facility: Vocational 48 students Educational Facilities: Vocational/training 1 space/two students 48 students / 2 students per space = 24 spaces 24 Senior Living Center Gross Floor Area 175,000 SF 43.14% Offices: Property Management 2,700 sq. ft. Office Uses: General Office Use 1 space/500 sq. ft. 2,700 sq. ft. / 500 sq. ft. = 5.4 spaces 6 Senior Living Center Building Unit Density 15.7 units per acre Total Parking 30 30 Classroom Gross Floor Area 4,013 sq. ft. x 2 floors, total 12,040 SF 2.97% August 28, 2017 * = variable unit count based on actual needs. 85 Independent Living max., 64 Assisted Living max., 60 Memory Care max., total not to exceed 141. Cottage Gross Floor Area 7,066 sq. ft. x 1 floor, total 7,066 SF 1.80% ** = MACAA parking lot to be used for additional 11 staff parking spaces *=SpecialUsePermit 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA View of campus from Park Street showing existing vegetation and proposed screening P.U.D. Development Plan Land Use Plan - Proposed Views Component 2(c) August 28, 2017 View of campus from Route 250 Eastbound showing existing vegetation and proposed screening 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Public Access to Natural Area and Rockhill Garden Preserved Natual Area Playground Shared Use Plaza/Park- ing for NMSLC/MACAA for events and gatherings Courtyard Permeable Pavers Parking/ MACAA Intergenerational Gathering Area Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Garden Terrace Private Healing Garden Preserved Natual Area Private Courtyard Private Memory Garden Permeable Pavers Parking/ Gathering Area P.U.D. Development Plan Pedestrian Access from Rt. Infrastructure - 250 to MACAA Site Legend Common Areas and Streets/Vehicular Access Connecting Circulation Walkways/Pedestrian Access Common Areas - for P.U.D. Note: See Sheet N4 for Narrative regarding Private Gardens/Spaces for common elements essential to unified site Component 3(a) NMSLC residents design, Code Sec. 34-494. August 28, 2017 Landscaped Median 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net Unable to add street tree curbside 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Unable to add street tree curbside buffer between road and sidewalk buffer between road and sidewalk because of sight-line conflict. because of sight-line conflict. Three street trees planted to meet City Streets That Work requirements Three street trees planted to meet City Streets That Work requirements MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Notes: Charlottesville Streets That Work guidelines and typologies will be incorporated to enhance the property frontage along Park Street. This includes non-mountable curbs, a 4-ft buffer strip, 5-ft. sidewalk and street trees planted 40 ft. on center. Park Street is classfied as “Neighborhood A” in the Charlottesville Streets That Work Guidelines. Macaa Drive will include non-mountable curbs, buffer strips, a 5-ft. sidewalk and street trees planted 40 ft. on center. It is the applicant’s intention to keep Macaa Drive as a private street. Maintaning an adequate sight line from Macaa Drive prevents placing street trees between Park Street and the sidewalk. Other conflicts include limited space for plantings and vehicle/tree canopy conflicts. P.U.D. Development Plan Infrastructure - Transportation Plan Component 3(b) (PRIVATE) (PUBLIC) (PUBLIC) August 28, 2017 Existing Public Utililty Easement Critical Slopes (hatch area) 55,770 sq. ft./1.28 acres (defined as per Sec. 34-1120(b)(2) of City Code) 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net Steep Slopes (hatch area) 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Steep Slopes (hatch area) Existing Public Utililty Easement Critical Slopes (hatch area) 55,600 sq. ft./1.28 acres Steep Slopes (hatch area) MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Steep Slopes (hatch area) Critical Slopes (hatch area) 13,650 sq. ft./0.31 acres Steep Slopes (hatch area) Steep Slopes (hatch area) P.U.D. Development Plan Infrastructure - Utilities and Stormwater Steep Slopes (hatch area) Component 3(c) Best efforts will be made to keep perimeter stone walls in place. All features in undeveloped areas will remain. 0’ 40’ 80’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 40’-0” TS 466.57 " Deliveries SIDEWALK EASEMENT RO CK WA LL - RETAINING D.B. 360 P. 372 WALL T-3 N 390 325 8.9 450 0 E 114 912 79.437 S 00 Z 468 .37 FH B EXISTI COTTA NG GE 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net Parking for MACAA Office and Classrooms 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 SLA TE Senior Living Community Sign WA LK RO CK WA LL Independent, Assisted, Memory and Deliveries T-1 606 139 1 N 390 320 5.2 930 0 E 114 912 15.454 00 Z 467 .86 MACAA Classroom Sign S APPR OXIM ATE VEPC O EASE MENT D.B. 172 P. 360 OHE OHT Emergency Access Sign MACAA Office Sign Parking for MACAA Office and Classrooms MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Monument Entrance Signs built into stone wall with stone columns Temporary Sales Office Sign Legend Entrance Sign Wayfinding Sign Building Sign P.U.D. Development Plan Infrastructure - Signage Plan Component 3(d) Pedestrian Access Wayfinding Sign 0’ 30’ 60’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 30’-0” ) T-16 062 587 S T-16 N 3903 0623 365. 24 5860 0 N 390 E 1149 337 1244 7.61 .916 500 00 E 1149 Z 464 .87 1080 .160 00 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Z 454. 20 S Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 24.56 ' 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 8.86' 24.06' 30"R EF 30" F TS 466.57 " SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROC K WAL L - RETAINING D.B. 360 P. 372 WALL T-3 N 3903 258. 9450 0 E 1149 1279 .437 S 00 Z 468. 37 FH B EXIS COT TING TAG E SLA TE WAL K T-16 0613 91 N 3903 205. 2930 0 E 1149 1215 .454 00 Z 467. 86 S APPRO XIMAT E VEPCO EASEM ENT D.B. 172 P. 360 OHE OHT W W W GAS W S GAS GA GAS W W GAS S GAS GA W W GAS GA S W GA S S GA GAS S GA MACAA Intergenerational W W S GA S Education Campus GA W GAS Charlottesville, VA W GA W S W GA S GA S GA S GA S Phase 2A - Sales Office W Phase 2B - Single Family W Independent Living Cottages S GA AS G P.U.D. Development Plan Infrastructure - Phasing Plan Component 3(e) 0’ 40’ 80’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 40’-0” McIntire Park 14,600 sq. ft. Floodplain. 1/3 (4,867 sq. ft.) counted towards total Open Space. Schen Floodplain area approximate. Area not mapped by FEMA. ks Bra nch G Critical Slopes (hatch area) 55,600 sq. ft./1.28 acres (defined as per Sec. 34-1120(b)(2) of City Code) reenw ay 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Remnant Stone Steps Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 200’ Offset from Stream 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Remnant Stone Fireplace nch Schenks Bra Remnant Stone Steps Stone Wall Floodplain Existing Mature Tulip Poplars on adjacent property 20 Man-made Steep Slopes (hatch area) 6,400 sq. ft. 0’ Remnant Stone Wall MACAA Remnant Stone Steps Existing Mature Trees on adjacent property Mature Hardwood Forest Pro per Trees 8” caliper or larger (in color) (Sycamore, Beech, Poplar, Playground ty L Limits of ine Oak, Maple, Dogwood) Wood Fence 200’ ne Disturbance Li Limits of Disturbance ty 1021 Park Street er op Managed Turf Sha Pr MACAA red Driv Critical Slopes (hatch area) ewa y 55,600 sq. ft./1.28 acres Limits of Disturbance Managed Turf 200 ft. Offset from Stream Parking Lot Ma Residence caa Man-made Steep Slopes Driv e (hatch area) 1,100 sq. ft. MACAA Intergenerational Historic Rock Hill Garden 1025 Park Street Trees 8” caliper or larger Education Campus Remnants - approx. 28,000 (in color) Charlottesville, VA sq. ft./0.64 acres Managed Turf Remnant Stone Man-made Steep Slopes Critical Slopes (hatch area) Driveway Edge (hatch area) 2,300 sq. ft. 13,650 sq. ft./0.31 acres 1023 Park Street Dav is A Managed Turf ve. t tree kS Ex Successional Meadow ist Par in Limits of Disturbance g Dr Remnant Stone Wall ai Limits of Disturbance Rt na .2 ge Residence 50 By Man-made Steep Slopes (hatch area) pa 6,600 sq. ft. ss Man-made Steep Slopes (hatch area) 17,000 sq. ft. e Lin Successional Grove ty Trees 8” caliper or larger (in color) er op Existing New Stone Wall Pr Remnant Abandoned Disturbed/Graded Area Road and Entrance Successional P.U.D. Development Plan Grove Previously Developed Area Trees 8” caliper or larger (in color) Limits of Disturbance Total tree canopy removed (8” cal. and larger) - 50,000 sq. ft./1.15 acres Infrastructure - Total tree canopy to remain (8” cal. and larger) - 122,000 sq. ft./2.80 acres Disturbed/Graded Area - 212,950 sq. ft./4.89 acres Existing Conditions and Undisturbed/Nongraded Area - 183,600 sq. ft./4.21 acres Proposed Land Disturbance Note: There are no existing wetlands within the development area. Man-made Steep Slopes (hatch area) 1,450 sq. ft. Existing Vegetation Coverage Component 3(f) Hardwood Forest - 70,000 sq. ft. (1.61 acres) Site Trees - 110,000 sq. ft. (2.53 acres) Meadow - 37,200 sq. ft. (0.85 acres) Lawn - 86,000 sq. ft. (1.97 acres) 0’ 40’ 80’ August 28, 2017 Total - 306,400 sq. ft. (7.03 acres) Scale: 1”= 40’-0” 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 View of existing classroom and playground Existing classroom building Abandoned entrance at Rt. 250 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA View of existing parking looking west South edge of Macaa Drive Macaa Drive View of classrooms and playground Abandoned entrance View from Rt. 250 P.U.D. Development Plan Infrastructure - Site Photograghs Component 3(g) August 28, 2017 Existing developed area looking west View from Rt. 250 at property line McIntire Park 14,600 SF Floodplain. 1/3 (4,867 SF) counted towards total Open Space. Floodplain area approximate. Area not mapped by FEMA Schen 0.30 acres of forest and open space area to be ks Bra nch G protected via P.U.D. and Site Plan Approval reenw ay Pro Critical Slopes to remain undisturbed 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B per ty L Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net ine 200’ Offset from Stream 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Stone Wall to remain Steep Slope Stormwater Garden (managed BMP) Schenks Branch Stone Fireplace to remain Trees on adjacent property to remain Forested stream buffer to remain undis- Stone Steps Proposed Landscape Area turbed. Stream Buffer to be protected Floodplain to remain 20 via the SWM Preservation Easement Pro Man-made Steep Slope 0’ and a recorded SWM maintenance pos ed Lan agreement with the City. dsc Potential Relocated Existing ape Buf Trees (green symbols) Stone Steps fer Mature Hardwood Forest ine 6’-8’ Opaque Fence to remain to remain O utl e Limits of ne ac Limits of Disturbance 200’ Disturbance Li Sp ty n Existing trees to be removed er e Op op d (tree symbols without color) Pr r ve s e Limits of Disturbance e 1.85 acres of forest and Pr open space area to be protected via P.U.D. and Permeable Proposed Site Plan Approval Paving Senior Living Community MACAA Building Envelope Classrooms Emergency EMS Access Only 200’ Offset from Stream Garden Terrace Healing Garden Playground Residence to be repurposed for MACAA offices Courtyard Reconstructed Low Historic Rock Hill Garden to Stone Wall Remain Potential Relocated Existing MACAA Intergenerational Permeable Trees (green symbols) Education Campus Mac Paving aa D Landscape Island Charlottesville, VA rive Monument Signs Man-made Steep Slope Pr Secure access to Rockhill Dav es is A er Garden and Greenway Trail ve. ve d Limits of Disturbance O pe Monument Signs n Critical Slopes to remain Sp Pro undisturbed ac Successional Meadow M po Reconstructed Low Limits of sed Rt e em Stone Wall La O Existing Buffer Plantings Disturbance .2 Pa or nd ut yG sca er th lin 50 Man-made Steep Slope uff an ar pe e d de Proposed Bu eB By Fi n Landscape ffe re r Proposed Independent ap pa Ac Area sc ce Living Cottages and ss ss nd Sales Office et La Man-made Steep Slope 8” caliper or larger trees to tre ed Permeable remain (tree symbols with Potential Relocated Existing Stormwater Garden rk S os Paving color) Trees (green symbols) op (managed BMP) Pr Limits of Disturbance Pa Stone Wall to remain Man-made Steep Slope Stormwater Preservation Area Abandoned Road to remain Stone Wall to remain if possible as pedestrian access Existing trees to be removed Preserved Open Space Area (tree symbols without color) 0.22 acres open space to be protected P.U.D. Development Plan Stone Wall and Entrance to remain Note: Tree cover within Limits of Disturbance area will be Limits of Disturbance removed. All other tree cover will remain. e Lin Total tree canopy removed (8” cal. and larger) - 50,000 SF/1.15 acres Infrastructure - ty Total tree canopy to remain (8” cal. and larger) - 122,000 SF/2.80 acres er *Tree canopy to remain does not include relocated existing trees. op Protection Plan Pr BMP City Tree Protection will be implemented found in Appendix H of Public Access into MACAA Site, the Standards and Design Manual. pedestrian only All Open Space areas noted “to be preserved” will be protected via measures allowed by the PUD Ordinance. This area will be included in Preserved Open Space Outline a “Joint Use Agreement” with the City defined for public access. Areas Component 3(h) Man-made Steep Slope to be protected for the Stormwater Plan will be placed under conserva- tion easement meeting City Stormwater Ordinance requirements. 0’ 40’ 80’ August 28, 2017 Scale: 1”= 40’-0” ) T-16 062 587 S T-16 N 3903 0623 365. 24 5860 0 N 390 E 1149 337 1244 7.61 .916 500 00 Z 464 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B E 1149 Critical Slopes .87 1080 .160 00 Z 454. 20 S Charlottesville, Virginia „ www.lpda.net 24.56 ' 434 296 2108 „ Fax 434 296 2109 Pro 8.86' 24.06' per 30"R EF 30" F ty L ine Native Plantings within Stormwater Garden TS 466.57 " Trees on adjacent property to Remain SIDEWALK EASEMENT ROC K WAL L - RETAINING D.B. 360 P. Existing Trees to 372 WALL T-3 N 3903 258. 9450 0 E 1149 Remain 1279 Pro .437 S 00 Z 468. 37 FH B pos EXIS COT TING TAG E ed 446 444 448 Lan dsc 442 450 ape SLA TE WAL W ALK K ne Buf ROC K WAL L fer 440 Li T-16 0613 91 N 3903 205. 2930 0 452 E 1149 1215 .454 00 ty Z 467. 86 er op S 454 +451.22 Dense Evergreen Trees with Pr VEPCO APPRO EASEM XIMAT E ENT mixed in Shade Trees 456 46 D.B. 172 P. 360 464 6 OHE FFE 452.50 458 FFE 440.00 OHT Critical Slopes 460 438 Proposed 452 462 MACAA Senior Living Classrooms +436.70 Community W Emergency EMS W W GAS W Access Only S GAS GA +437.70 46 GAS W S W GA 2 452 GAS 436 Repurposed S GAS GA W GA W S GAS GA W 454 FFE 452.50 S W Residence S GA GA S W 46 GA W S S GA 450 8 46 FFE 440.00 Street Trees, typ. per 0 43 GA W S GAS 4 GA S W S.T.W. MACAA Intergenerational 43 448 S 46 46 GA 2 464 6 GA Ma Education Campus 2 S W 454 caa S GA GA S W 452 Driv S GA GA S W GAS Charlottesville, VA 446 e 460 W GA W S W Critical Slopes 444 GA 452 S W Dav GAS is A ve. Rt 45 GAS 6 GAS .2 442 GA S 45 4 50 GA S 45 2 430 434 By 45 0 432 428 pa FFE 440.00 426 440 Pro po W ss 42 4 sed W Street Trees, typ. La er W 2 42 FFE 440.00 et nd per S.T.W. uff 42 sca 2 tre eB S 422 pe GA 42 Bu S GA 4 rk S ap Mixed Evergreen and ffe 42 S Plant Symbols GA r 6 sc S GA 42 438 Deciduous Trees 8 nd Pa S GA 43 42 0 La 0 43 Shade Tree 2 ed 41 8 os 434 +T 436 41 W op 42 6 5. 00 +TW Street Tree Pr 41 43 3. 4 4 + TW 41 6. Utility Lines 412 70 426 Stormwater Garden Medium-sized Tree Memory Garden Ornamental Tree Evergreen Tree Before Development: Areas: Total Existing Tree Canopy (All trees, both over and under 8” caliper) 180,000 sq. ft./4.13 acres Narrow Evergreen Tree P.U.D. Development Plan Total Existing Vegetative Cover (includes all lawn, meadow, site trees and forested areas) 306,400 sq. ft./7.03 acres Large Shrub After Development: Plant Bed e Remaining Existing Tree Canopy (All trees, both over and under 8” caliper) 125,000 sq. ft./2.87 acres Lin Remaining Existing Forested Area/Successional Meadow 104,200 sq. ft./2.39 acres Transplanted Existing Tree ty er Remaining Existing Total Vegetative Cover (lawn, meadow, site trees and forest areas) op 160,000 sq. ft./3.67 acres Landscape Plan Pr Managed BMP Areas 9,600 sq. ft./0.22 acres Existing Deciduous Tree Landscaped Areas (planted areas/buffers/turf, BMP’s) 89,000 sq. ft./2.04 acres Pedestrian Access Only Proposed Tree Canopy at 10 years growth 70,000 sq. ft/1.61 acres Existing Spruce Tree Total Vegetative Cover (Remaining Existing Cover + Landscape Area) 252,000 sq. ft./5.78 acres Difference Between Before and After Development: Existing Pine Tree Component 4(a) Net Loss of Vegetative Cover (Total Veg. Cover before - Total Veg. Cover after) 54,400 sq. ft./1.25 acres Existing Holly Notes: All landscape area measurements are approximate. 0’ 40’ 80’ August 28, 2017 Utilites are conceptual. Final utility routing will follow proposed streets. Scale: 1”= 40’-0” Documents Provided In Support of the Application The proposed projects will allow children from the Head Start program as well as from Project Discovery and seniors Background Information for MACAA to share experiences and enrich each other’s lives. The proposed project will provide significant independent living A. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT and assisted living options for seniors and allow these members of our community to remain close to their families and Monticello Area Community Action Agency [MACAA] was founded in 1965 and has led the effort to eradicate poverty the neighborhoods and city, which have formed the fabric of their lives. MACAA was excited that the proposed project and improve the lives of people with low income in Central Virginia. Serving the City of Charlottesville and the counties B. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING APPLICATION CHECKLIST would preserve almost all of the existing history, landscaping, topography, and character of the site, provide employ- of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson, MACAA provides a range of services and support to families of low in- ment opportunities, directly add significant new tax revenues to support City programs, and improve existing safety of come. As part of the services it offers, MACAA administers a Head Start school program within the City of Charlottes- 1. SECTION 34-157(a)(2): Narrative Statement: Applicant’s Analysis of Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan the Davis Avenue/MACAA entrance road with minimum requirements for additional City services for schools, trans- ville and the counties it serves, providing early childhood education to 213 children across its service area, 60 of which portation, and other associated support and infrastructure costs required for traditional residential developments. The are served at the Park Street location. 2. SECTION 34-157(a)(4): Narrative Statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well proposed plan of development will allow for the new structures to primarily be developed on the existing center parking 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts. lot and over the existing building footprints on the site, thus preserving much of the perimeter tree cover and historic Head Start provides a comprehensive, early childhood development program for three- and four-year-old children from Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net fabric in a manner that is contained and reduces the overall visual impact of the project with respect to the surrounding families in the greatest need. Head Start children participate in a wide range of educational activities designed to en- 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 3. SECTION 34-158(a)(6): Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance City, park, and parkway. hance school readiness. In addition, Head Start Family Advocates provide case management support, assist parents in PUD Ordinance Checklist and Narrative addressing social service needs, and help parents attain family management and parenting skills and reach self-identi- The proposed plan provides for MACAA to move its executive offices to the existing Stone House, thus preserving this fied goals. 4. Other pertinent information for the proposed project. Supplemental Project Information residential property virtually “as is” on the site. The new school structure will be at an appropriate scale and residential character and will be located at the rear of the existing Stone House property. The preservation of the Stone House Hope House offers housing and intensive case management for families facing homelessness in the community. The 1. Proposed Building Architectural Massing and Design Guidelines and the new school will act as a transitional element to the adjacent residential neighbor and will be heavily screened program works with families to provide a safe home, stabilize the family, help them to reach employment goals, attain a. MACAA New School Building to buffer the impacts on the adjacent property. money-management skills, and maintain a healthy, stable home environment. Since 1988, Hope House has trans- b. NMSLC Senior Living Community Building formed the lives of dozens of families. 2. Park Street Traffic Impact Analysis The MACAA intergenerational education campus has the opportunity to bring together children and seniors in purpose- 3. Project Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations ful and mutually-beneficial activities that enhance the quality of life for all participants while also providing opportunities Project Discovery promotes academic achievement as a means of propelling high school students from low-income 4. Typical Senior Housing Units Exhibit to share resources and needed services to the community. The proximity of these uses within the campus allows for families out of poverty. The program specifically focuses on encouraging and helping these students prepare for and 5. Rock Hill Property History – Background more flexible and frequent intergenerational programming, and because the interactions are walkable distances apart, pursue a college education. Students receive assistance with completing college applications, locating and applying for 6. Locust Grove Neighborhood History – Background this will be a safer means of getting the children and seniors together. financial aid, planning for their careers, and preparing to excel academically and socially beyond high school. One goal for the Project Discovery is to identify mentors in the community for the students in the program. 5. Completed Proffer Statement – No Additional Specific Proffers are provided other than the PUD Application The operator of the senior living community will be Retirement Unlimited Inc. [RUI]. RUI communities currently have a Proposal itself. variety of intergenerational programs involving preschool and school age children. Activities include talent shows (po- Rural Outreach has offices in Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson counties and provides emergency assistance to families etry reading, singing, playing instruments, gymnastics, etc.), show and tell, board and Wii games, storytelling, crafts, by offering food, clothing, and financial resources to cover rent and utility costs. Each site director assesses a client’s ______________________________________________________________________________ cooking, shared community service projects, holiday and birthday celebrations, reading clubs, pen-pals, sharing meals needs and links them to other resources in the region to help meet their longer-term needs. The Fluvanna office oper- together, or just general interaction and conversation. Both the Boy and Girl Scouts also visit RUI communities on a ates a thrift shop as well as a large food bank in cooperation with the Fluvanna Christian Aid Society. regular basis for activities, projects, or community service. Additional information on MACAA can be found on their website at www.MACAA.org. A. PROPOSED PUD REZONING DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND AND CON- Background Information for NMSLC and RUI TEXT NMSLC [New Millennium Senior Living Communities (“NMSLC”)] is a leading developer of senior housing, independent Summary Overview living, assisted living, and skilled nursing properties in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the United States. The proposed PUD rezoning involves three parcels located on Park Street immediately north of the 250 Bypass inter- NMSLC is developing first-class facilities and, through a network of experienced, capable, regional operating partners, section with Park Street. The primary parcel [1025 Park Street] is approximately 7.63 acres and is zoned R1 with a delivers best-in-class services to the residents of these communities and their families. special use permit to operate as a school, and is owned by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency [MACAA] as its program administrative headquarters and the location for three of its Head Start classrooms. Note that the total NMSLC is able to leverage more than 140 combined years of experience in real estate development, acquisitions, proj- acreage was reduced from 7.91 acres to 7.63 acres as a result of land lost during the VDOT construction of the Warner ect financing, and operations management across a broad range of real estate disciplines including healthcare, senior Parkway and associated ramp improvements. housing, multifamily, residential, institutional, industrial, retail, and office. The second parcel [1021 Park Street] is an existing residential property zoned R1 and is known as the “Stone House.” RUI [Retirement Unlimited, Inc. (“RUI”)] is a Roanoke, Virginia based senior housing, independent living, and assisted MACAA was able to acquire the property, which is approximately .913 acres, in 2016 as a part of its proposed redevel- living community management company founded in 1984 currently managing seven retirement and assisted-living opment plan. The parcel is immediately adjacent and north of MACAA’s entrance drive from Park Street. communities located throughout Virginia. RUI is a second-generation, family-owned-and-operated business estab- lished to satisfy a need for quality, progressive personal care services in a residential setting with strong clinical proto- The third parcel is a residential property [1023 Park Street] of approximately .492 acres with a small house on Park Street and adjacent to the south of the existing MACAA entrance road. cols to allow for residents to age in place while enjoying a high quality of life. RUI’s philosophy and vision are to deliver MACAA Intergenerational a lifestyle that our residents have earned and deserve–placing our emphasis on integrity in everything we do, attention to detail, respect and value of individuality, and, finally, genuine care and concern for the well-being of our residents Education Campus Together the parcels total 9.02 acres and are adjacent to the Warner Parkway to the west, the 250 Bypass on the and their families. RUI currently manages a total of 809 units, with communities ranging in size from 72 units up to 181 Charlottesville, VA south, and residential neighborhoods on the north and east sides of the site. units with four of the communities providing specialized programming in secure settings for memory care seniors. MACAA has partnered with New Millennium Senior Living Communities of Roanoke Virginia [NMSLC] and proposes to RUI’s services are provided on a monthly rental basis, with no large, upfront endowment or entrance fees. For inde- rezone the combined properties into an intergenerational living and education campus. The proposed project will pro- pendent living residents, the all-inclusive rental rate provides numerous amenities and services, including both casual vide significant new senior living housing opportunities through NMSLC and new administrative and Head Start school and fine dining meal options, housekeeping, laundry, concierge service, salon, unit maintenance and utilities, sched- facilities for MACAA. The adjacent facilities will provide seniors and young children with intergenerational contact and uled transportation for appointments, shopping and events, an on-site therapy and wellness clinic, and a variety of ac- program opportunities on a routine basis, add needed senior housing and care services within the Downtown Char- tivities designed to meet every resident’s emotional, social, physical, spiritual, and intellectual needs. Our independent lottesville community, and provide much-needed, new facilities and financial stability to one of the Community’s most living residents have the peace of mind knowing our building is staffed 24 hours per day, 7 hours per day, 365 days per important organizations serving low-income children and families. year, and, with our emergency call system, assistance is available around the clock. In addition, the proposed project will provide the City of Charlottesville with significant new tax revenues and employ- For assisted-living residents, the all-inclusive rental rate includes the above, as well as all meals with a choice of ment opportunities and will resolve current safety and alignment issues at the Park Street/MACAA Drive intersection. menus, and personal care with activities of daily living and medication management based upon individual assessed It will also serve to protect significant historic landscape features from future development and enable appropriate por- needs. RUI’s Inspiritas program is specifically designed for those with cognitive impairment or dementia. The Inspir- tions of these to be enjoyed by the community through a cooperative approach with City of Charlottesville Parks and itas areas are secured for resident safety yet offer beautiful, landscaped grounds to stimulate the senses and to en- Recreation Department. hance connectedness to nature. The daily calendar of activities reflects the five components of our Life Enrichment program as our staff uses a variety of creative approaches such as music and movement, art, small- and large-group Project Background social interactions, yoga and chair exercise, technology, and cognitive stimulation through brain fitness and reminis- Approximately two years ago, MACAA [Monticello Area Community Action Agency] began a process to evaluate its cence opportunities. long-range options for replacing its failing facility and school and explore the redevelopment of its largest asset, its large parcel of land on Park Street, with the intent of restoring its financial stability and securing the future of its pro- Providing for a continuum of care within the building allows us to maximize the independence of our residents by pro- grams and services to the communities it serves. MACAA’s existing classrooms and facilities are in dire need of re- viding them with the most appropriate level of care they need when they need it. Also, couples in which each spouse placement as soon as is practically possible, and it faces significant financial pressures operationally. has different care needs are able to live in close proximity to one another to maintain the needed support, care, and connection with the other spouse. MACAA engaged professional development and design consultants to look at alternative scenarios that would accom- plish its goals and, as importantly, would respect and maintain the character and history of this important site and its Through RUI’s Life Enrichment programs, the entire staff work together to ensure each resident receives compassion- place in the community both in terms of land use and its proximity and connection to the Charlottesville Downtown ate care to meet his/her emotional, social, physical, spiritual, and cognitive needs. Programs are provided throughout and surrounding neighborhoods. Careful exploration of the R-1 zoned site and the “by right” development potentials the day and evenings, as well as on weekends. To encourage lifelong learning, “RUI University” also provides short- revealed some significant problems in terms of MACAA’s values and goals as a member of the community and ad- course classes for those looking for additional educational opportunities (see attached sample calendar). RUI Univer- verse impacts that “by right” residential development would create. While feasible, “by right” development of the site sity is in the process of becoming certified as a host location for the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) curricu- would require significant adverse impacts on the site with respect to erasing much of the tree cover, history, character, lum. and visual impact of the site with respect to the adjacent Warner Parkway and McIntire Park, and likely adverse traf- fic impacts to the Davis Avenue entrance. In addition, the site development costs and market realities of a “by right” P.U.D. Development Plan The interior of the building will have well-appointed common areas throughout the building including a wellness spa, residential project were not favorable in terms of overall returns for this site. This reality, along with the adverse land bistro, library, pub/café, activity rooms, fitness gym, multiple dining venues, private dining room, education room, well- development and community impacts, led to an intense search for alternative options. ness center/doctor’s office and movie theater, to name a few. After significant additional efforts to find alternatives, MACAA was fortunate to find a partner and use for the site that would meet the goals of MACAA’s long-term financial and facilities needs along with an appropriate use for the site meeting MACAA’s community values and goals. The proposed senior living community will have 141 residential units Narrative Statement and in the senior housing project [a “residential unit” within the context of the senior living community is typically one or two bedrooms and small adjacent support areas] and will be a mix of active senior, assisted living and memory care units. Zoning Compliance The project will also have four age-restricted (62+), affordable housing units. Within this context, the fact that these “units” are not “family” units and serve individuals or couples, and the operational metrics of the community with regard to low trip generation for services such as grocery, doctors, employment, schools, etc. as well as individual services such as trash pickup makes this a much lower impact with respect to comparable family home density zoning impact metrics. This proposed alternative, while adding residential density, does minimal damage to the existing fabric of the site with low impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, traffic on Park Street, and perhaps, most importantly, provides an N1 opportunity for a vibrant and exciting synergy with and for MACAA and its programs and the senior living community. August 28, 2017 B. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING APPLICATION SUPPORT DOCUMENTS Goal 11 – Parks and Recreation Trails. We will work with the City Parks and Recreation Department and will enter into CP Goal 4 Environment a mutually-agreeable program to access the historic gardens and its property adjoining McIntire Park consistent with The Applicant has met with the City several times, including the required Pre-Application Meeting, and the City of Char- project security, and to create additional trails for use by residents of the project and the public. Public pedestrian Goals 1 & 2 – Urban Landscape and Habitat Enhancement. As we have outlined in prior sections, one of our foremost lottesville has identified the following sections of the City Zoning Ordinance Section 34 that apply to this project. The access to the historic gardens will be facilitated through the existing former access drive off of the 250 Bypass ramp, goals in the development of the property was the preservation of the existing woodlands, habitat, natural features, and following documents and information are provided to meet these requirements for the application. which is now designated as a pedestrian walkway and entrance. historical landscape features of the existing site. The first essential component of this effort was to locate the required new building density for a feasible project on areas that had minimal adverse impact on the natural environment of the 1. SECTION 34-157)a)(2): Narrative Statement: Applicant’s Analysis of Conformity with Goal 12 – Parks and Recreation Environment. We will work with the Parks and Recreation Department to evaluate and site. The second component is in the preservation and enhancement of these landscape features through additional maintain the entire site environment consistent with the City’s current plans for removal of invasive plants, wild area tree plantings, buffering plants, and appropriate land and landscape management to prevent soil erosion and excess the Comprehensive Plan preservation on the critical slopes and wooded areas, and other collaborative measures with the City to ensure that the of contaminated storm water into the Rivanna River watershed and associated ground water systems. Our landscape 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net environmental attributes of the site and adjacent impacts are preserved and maintained. plans shown on the attached landscape plans illustrate how the proposed project preserves as many existing trees and The City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan of 2013 identifies 7 areas of guidance with respect to new development 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 other valuable plants as possible as well as replants and supports urban forestry efforts along the boundary and buffer and rezoning projects within the City and include the following: Goal 13 – Parks and Recreation Access. In working with the Parks and Recreation Department on a potential access areas of the site. program, we will work with them to provide accessible [ADA compliant] access where possible with a mutually-agree- CP Goal 1 Land Use able security and access plan that provides appropriate public access and security for residents, children, and staff of Goal 3 – Urban Habitat and Greenspace Interconnections. Our proposed development plan for the site focuses on the CP Goal 2 Community Facilities the proposed project. preservation and enhancement of the existing trails, connections to the Warner Parkway Trail, and interconnections to CP Goal 3 Economic Sustainability CP Goal 4 Environment McIntire Park and other trails in the system. These are shown on the attached buffer plan and landscape plans and will CP Goal 5 Housing Goals 14 – Parks and Recreation Programs. Both MACAA and NMSLC are enthusiastic about working with the City be further developed in our site plan details and submission. CP Goal 6 Transportation and Parks and Recreation on the development of collaborative programs that would enrich the residents of the project CP Goal 7 Urban Design and Historic Preservation as well as MACAA programs and children in either a leadership or supportive role. NMSLC has both the intent and Goal 4 -Water Resources Protection. Our proposed project includes provisions for a new, private storm water man- proposed available facilities that can support community-based recreational programs based on schedule and program agement system, which will detain, convey, and manage existing storm water run-off from the site as well as existing The proposed Project meets these goals of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: type. NMSLC and RUI have a history of doing this in their other locations. adjacent residential lots. Field investigation identified several areas where the existing and original stone fences have created unwanted storm water detention areas, and these will be addressed in our storm water management plan. CP Goal 1 – Land Use Goals 15 – Recreational Finances. The proposed NMSLC project will be providing significant additional revenues to The draft concept for the PUD for the storm water management system is included in the storm water plan graphic and General Comments - The existing MACAA Site and the adjacent and included parcels with this PUD application combined the City of Charlottesville as a component of its operations. NMSLC and MACAA support the development and en- the attached storm water management calculations exhibits in the supplemental information. Water collected by the are one of the largest underdeveloped parcels in the Central Downtown and adjacent Locust Grove and North Downtown hancement of recreational programs and capital improvements through the careful allocation of these new financial system will be managed in a large, green, engineered storm water detention lake or planted bed pond on the site close neighborhoods. The site is unique in that it is a somewhat isolated parcel within the City bounded by steep and heavi- resources available to the City. to the location of an original site pond on the site. This then would interpret an historic feature of the site as well as ly-wooded slopes on the west side, which connects directly to the new Warner Parkway, the John Warner Parkway trail, provide a safe and appropriate filtering and detention system. the Schenks Branch Creek, and McIntire Park on the other side of the Parkway. The lower southern portion of the site has Goals 16 – Educational Institutions. The proposed MACAA new school facility will be providing critically-important the remains of the historic gardens of the Rock Hill Estate and the 250 Bypass, which is a significant divide between the classroom and support facilities for their community-based educational work and mission. NMSLC are also committed Goals 5 & 6 - Sustainable Development and Resource Efficiency. The developer and building-design team will explore Downtown area and the outlying Park Street/Locust Grove neighborhood. There is a thin band of single-family, residen- to community-based educational programs and collaboration with other community educational resources and insti- and implement sustainable, green building design elements and systems where possible and which are consistent with tial homes along Park Street, which are in part isolated from the Locust Grove neighborhood, and are heavily wooded at tutions. RUI will be an OLLI-certified educational location and resource to both the project residents and to the com- the overall economic feasibility of the project, including life cycle energy, water, material, and other operational costs. their rear edges, effectively buffering that edge from the existing MACAA site. The north edge of the site is adjacent to munity at large. Additional collaborative opportunities may be possible with respect to archaeology, botany, and land- the existing single-family residence known as the “Stone House” and one very large and recently-renovated, residential scape architecture education and clinical and service training. Goals 7 & 8 Water Conservation and Waste Reduction. The developer will implement appropriate current water-con- property on a large lot immediately adjacent to the lower boundary of the north edge of the site. servation and waste-reduction strategies on the site and in the design of the buildings and operational considerations Goals 17 - Public Buildings. The proposed project is not currently proposing any sole-use public buildings as a com- including overall life-cycle operating efficiencies and costs. As such, the site is physically isolated, and there is little connection, visually or directly, between the adjacent neighbor- ponent of its program or proposal, however it does support and will provide significant upgrades and improvements hood and the MACAA parcel except the existing entrance drive off of Park Street. The original 1825 Rock Hill estate to roadways, sidewalks, fences and stone wall landscaping and trails, which are part of the City infrastructure grid. In CP Goal 5 Housing home burned in 1963, and the large center portion of the site is now a large parking lot with the existing ramshackle particular, the project will resolve long-standing deficiencies of Park Street and the Park Street/MACAA Drive intersec- MACAA buildings spread along the west perimeter. The significant value of the site is in its mature wooded areas on the tion. Improvements will include pedestrian facilities, improved sight lines and intersection re-alignment, meeting City Goals 1, 2 & 3 – Consider the Impact of Housing on City Goals and Maintain, Improve and Grow the City’s Housing south and west steep slopes, the historic gardens and landscaping along the 250 Bypass and Warner Parkway borders, engineering and Streets That Work standards. Stock. The proposed project will provide additional high-quality senior housing options and opportunities for 145 or and its significant setback from Park Street separating it from the Locust Grove neighborhood and Park Street. more residents in the City [141 senior housing residential units plus four age-restricted (62+), affordable units] . We CP Goal 3 – Economic Sustainability note that there is a need for more and better senior housing alternatives within the City that would enable elderly mem- Goal 1 – Sense of Place. Rather than creating an isolated and disconnected extension of the adjacent residential neigh- bers of our community to continue to engage in and be a part of the life of the City without being relocated to an area borhoods, the proposed project has focused on creating a functionally-integrated, intergenerational, residential and edu- General Notes and Goal 1 Innovation and Goal 2 Sustaining Business. The proposed MACAA and NMSLC projects will outside of the main parts of the City or adjacent to a hospital. cation campus. This plan allows the site to have direct interconnections between the senior living and children’s school represent a combined capital investment in the City of more than $50 million. We expect that, once construction com- areas and to create a distinctive sense of place while achieving the “highest and best use” of the land within the bounds mences, the project will be complete within 26 months. Annual wages and employee benefits for the senior housing Goal 4 - Funding Initiatives. One of the important economic impacts of the proposed development plan and rezoning of an economically-feasible project. While additional residential density beyond the R1 “by right” zoning is necessary project are expected to be approximately $2.5 million. In addition to wages and employee benefits, RUI will pay real is the ability of the City to receive significant additional tax and other revenues from the project, which are now un- economically to achieve a feasible project, this is achieved by creating much-needed senior living residential units, which estate taxes and business license and personal property taxes, estimated at total of $400,000 annually and associated available since MACAA is a 501(c)(3) Organization. The additional revenues to the City are more than $400,000 per MACAA Intergenerational are quite different from traditional single-family homes and can be combined and consolidated into a building footprint that does not create significant negative impacts to the valuable character and attributes of the site. The proposed 141 “res- with its property year and sufficient to fund a number of significant initiatives if the City so desires. In addition, MACAA is intimately Education Campus engaged in programs and support for low-income families with respect to housing alternatives and options. MACAA idential units” are not single-family homes in the context of typical residential zoning, but are effectively single- or dou- Charlottesville, VA NMSLC and RUI are well-established business entities with a significant track record of successful operations that will and NMSLC would be interested in exploring and administratively supporting City efforts to provide affordable and ble-bedrooms with supporting bathroom, kitchenette and living spaces. An additional four age-restricted (62+), affordable provide a stable and ongoing successful financial component to the City of Charlottesville community. The primary and other housing options in the City either directly or indirectly though MACAA programs. NMSLC will also be providing a residential units are being provided by proffer on MACAA Drive at the Park Street entrance. Examples of the typical secondary economic impacts for the City of Charlottesville Downtown and the community in general are expected to be $75,000 donation proffer to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for work force affordable housing units in addi- living unit configurations proposed are included in Supplemental Information, attached. significant over a long period of time. tion to its provision of four age-restricted (62+), affordable housing units. Goal 2 – Mixed Use. The proposed project creates needed housing for seniors, community-accessible walking trails to By successfully completing the proposed project, MACAA will be able to become financially stable, which will greatly Goals 5 & 6 – Partnerships and Incentives. MACAA and NMSLC are supportive of and interested in partnering and adjacent parklands, potential access to historic gardens and memorial site historic attributes, and needed classroom, out- enhance its ability to provide critical services and support to low-income members of the community and to children supporting City and other efforts to enhance housing alternatives within the City. door play, and supports uses for the MACAA program consistent and appropriate for the size of the site and preservation of existing site attributes. enrolled in its Head Start and Project Discovery programs. Goal 7 – Design Options/Underserved Housing Needs. The design of a feasible project on the existing site while pro- Goal 3 – Public Space. The proposed project will provide preserved wooded areas adjacent to the Warner Parkway and Goal 3 – Partnerships. MACAA is engaged in a wide range of local and regional partnerships in support of its mission viding a much-needed and valuable response to the needs of seniors who need quality options for retirement housing 250 Bypass, will explore public access to the historic gardens and adjacent landscape areas, and will create a public to support and assist low-income citizens and help erase the underlying causes of poverty in the community. and care within the City. The addition of four age-restricted (62+), affordable residential housing units adds to the open space at the Davis Avenue entrance for scheduled community events and gathering with pervious paver hardscape availability of mixed-use housing options and complies with the goals of the comprehensive plan. As noted above, the and other amenities. The project creates opportunities for employment centers and diverse employment opportunities for NMSLC and RUI are similarly committed to business and other partnerships that will enhance the local business com- development of this project would provide significant potential for additional, ongoing resources to fund the develop- the City. munity and provide increased opportunities for its citizens. ment of other mixed-use projects within the City. Goal 4 – Regional Cooperation. The proposed project provides senior housing opportunities to community citizens on a Goal 4 – Tourism. We believe that the proposed senior living community will provide modest but measurable opportu- Goal 8 – Sustainability Principles. As we have outlined earlier, MACAA is fundamentally engaged in its mission and regional basis so that they can remain in their local and regional community with access to family and familiar commu- nities for enhanced tourism, with families visiting residents and visiting local tourist attractions, eating out, staying in work to provide and support low-income families in finding and creating housing options in the City. MACAA has con- nity resources. The essence of the MACAA program is to support regional well-being and cooperation for the benefit of hotels, and participating in local entertainment options. cluded that its ability to continue to provide existing services and potentially to expand supportive services can only be low-income families. Developing this property with NMSLC will make the continuation of these services and programs accomplished by the sale of its land to NMSLC and the development of this intergenerational education campus. possible, both now and in the future. In addition, it is RUI’s desire to work with the University of Virginia on its lifelong Goal 5 – Downtown Mall. One of the most important features of the proposed project is its proximity to the Downtown learning and OLLI programs. Mall and the opportunities that this will provide for our residents to visit, shop, and participate the in the active life of Upon consideration of the goal of creating additional housing density where appropriate in Section 8.3, we believe that this important part of our community. We believe that the additional residents and their proximity to the Mall with pro- the proposed NMSLC/MACAA development is an appropriate and important opportunity for the City and that this goal Goal 5 – Innovation. The planned intergenerational connection between seniors and young children in the Head Start vide enhanced economic interests and vitality to the Downtown Mall. supports the increased density we seek in the PUD application. This applies to employment opportunities and other program and teens in its Project Discovery program is highly innovative in redefining healthy aging and the strong positive economic impacts to the significant benefit of the City and with minimal to no additional costs for services, schools, and impact that older people can have on young children and teens as well as the cognitive and health benefits social inter- Goal 6 – Workforce. The workforce economic impact of the proposed projects is significant and will include the creation other City costs. action will have on older adults. The building design repurposes existing topography and previous impacts resulting in of between 45 and 55 full-time employee positions staffed by approximately 75-85 full- and part-time staff members, preservation of much of the outlying landscape areas and cultural landscape features. as well as the preservation of the current approximately 25 staff employees associated with MACAA operations at the CP Goal 6 Transportation Park Street location. The senior living community will be staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Except for ad- CP Goal 2 – Community Facilities ministrative staff whose hours are generally 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., our health care professionals and service staff will work in Goal 1 – Complete Streets. The proposed project, while requiring security and safety for its residents, will provide bicy- three shifts: typically 7 a.m. – 3 p.m.; 3 p.m. – 11 p.m.; and, 11 p.m. – 7 a.m. The approximately 85 full- and part-time cle pathways and walking trails where appropriate and will be included in the project’s detailed site plan submission. Goal 1 – Fire Department, Goal 2 – Emergency Rescue, Goal 3 – Police Department. The proposed project will conform employees at the senior living community will be provided with competitive wages, benefits, training and career ad- We are exploring options with City Parks and Recreation to provide appropriate pedestrian public access to the historic to all applicable fire codes and regulations and will provide appropriate primary and secondary emergency egress and vancement opportunities. MACAA and NMSLC will work together to utilize local workforce development programs so and cultural resources on the property particularly along the Warner Parkway Trail, pedestrian connections to the trail P.U.D. Development Plan entry points for fire, police, and emergency responders. The proposed facilities are fully secured and will comply with all that MACAA constituents are well positioned for employment at the facility. Ideally, MACAA constituents employed at and McIntire Park, as well as sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle pathways along the new Davis Avenue/MACAA/ local regulations as well as those required by applicable the facility will receive ongoing education and training that will allow them to continually progress to higher paying po- NMSLC entrance drive and appropriate connections to the surrounding neighborhood and City pathways. We will en- federal, state, and local agencies, which regulate these respective facilities as well as normal best practices for indoor sitions at the facility, or, if constituents prefer, outside the facility. This close cooperation between MACAA and NMSLC ter into a mutually-acceptable agreement with the City for the development and maintenance of these access routes to and outdoor security and safety. Emergency access points of entry and egress are proposed with the primary at the Park will help MACAA deliver on its promise “From poverty to self-reliance through education.” public spaces and the existing trails and historic resources on or adjacent to the site. Street/Davis Avenue entrance, and the existing minor entrance as a backup access point adjacent the Stone House along its existing driveway to Park Street with demountable bollards. On-site focus on safety for children involved in the MACAA Head Start school program is also a primary concern and Narrative Statement and Construction-related jobs are estimated at appropriately 700 – 800, including direct labor, materials management and will be addressed with appropriate safe crossing points for both the public street connection and interior road and walk- Goal 4 – Solid Waste. The proposed project will actively participate in and encourage recycling and will use all local solid local housing, and merchant and food impacts over the two year construction period. In addition, long-term economic way connections. Zoning Compliance waste, and recycling programs. benefits will also accrue to the community for both supplier and vendor businesses as a result of operations from this senior living community. Also included in Goal 3 narrative, the proposed project will address significant safety and traffic-flow problems at the Goal 5 – Water Infrastructure. The project proposes to use City of Charlottesville domestic water infrastructure for drinking connection of the new MACAA/NMSLC entrance drive and Park Street as well the adjacent Davis Avenue neighbor- water. hood connection intersection with Park Street. Goal 6 – Wastewater Infrastructure. Public sanitary sewer infrastructure connections are proposed for the project. Storm water management is proposed to be handled onsite with the creation of an onsite storm water management collector All street, sidewalk, pathways, and trails [where appropriate] will conform to current ADA standards as well as approved N2 VDOT design standards. system connected and draining to an onsite lake or green storm water basin at the location where an original historic small lake structure was located adjacent to the 250 Bypass and the historical gardens. Goals 7, 8, 9, 10 – Parks and Recreation [Upgrades and Expansion], Recreational Uses, and Best Practices. The pro- posed project plans to engage with the existing Warner Parkway trail system and explore connections to McIntire Park August 28, 2017 and will develop appropriate interconnections with Parks and Recreation Department to achieve these goals. Goals 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 – Land Use and Community Design/Arterial Road Network/Efficient Mobility/Parking/Transit 2. SECTION 34-157(a)(4): Narrative Statement identifying and discussing any potential The primary mitigating factors are inherent in the character of the MACAA school building and the residential charac- System. One of the primary design components that the project proposes is the redesign and resolution of several adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to miti- ter and nature of a senior living community use. As we have noted, the MACAA school and offices are already on the functional- and safety-related components of the connection at the existing MACAA entrance drive, Park Street, and site under a special use permit, and the proposed new school building and re-use of the existing Stone House will only the adjacent Davis Avenue intersection. By purchasing the property on both sides of the existing MACAA entrance gate those impacts. serve to minimize any adverse impacts from this current use through an appropriately-designed school facility and a drive, the project proposes to create a new entrance drive shown in more detail in the attached Exhibit Sheet 11, which new, buffered playground area. The residential density of the proposed 141 residential units in the new senior living illustrates the proposed realigned MACAA/NMSLC entrance drive with Davis Avenue at Park Street and provides for an Narrative follows the Pre-Application Checklist for this Section. community are predominately single- or double-bedrooms with supporting bathroom, kitchenette and living spaces. advance warning sign with a lower advisory speed, intersection markings, pedestrian crossing measures, and traffic The additional proposed four age-restricted (62+), affordable units are in scale and type as adjacent residential units in calming markings. We also are encouraging and anticipating cooperation with the City on the reprogramming of the a.) Statistically insignificant traffic or parking congestion is indicated by the proposed rezoning or project plan and the neighborhood. As such, these residential “units” cannot be equated with typical zoning defined “family” residential significant safety improvements result from the proposed traffic improvements of the proposed PUD Plan. The pro- 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Park and 250 Bypass traffic lights, which we believe will significantly improve the safety and efficiency of traffic flow density structures and are therefore effectively much less dense than the zoning definition would imply. Further, the Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net along Park Street. The developers have provided a detailed traffic analysis for the proposed new entrance drive at posed plan provides for significant traffic and safety improvements to the Davis Avenue/Park Street/MACAA-NMSLC residents of the community will not generally create traffic, noise, and other adverse factors, which are an underlying entrance intersection with minimal increased traffic, which will occur in off peak hours. 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 Park Street and Davis Avenue, which shows traffic trips generation from the proposed new project with minimal statisti- component of the relevant “residential” zoning considerations. As such, while the number of residential “units” is much cal impact on traffic levels, and improving the overall traffic impact and safety at this entrance drive connection. larger than the R1 zoning, the actual comparable additional zoning impact of this proposed project is significantly less. b.) Minimal to no additional lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration or other factors adverse to the natural environment The Senior Living Community operator. RUI, will be providing transportation busses or other transportation for resi- are being created. The proposed plan protects, and enhances the existing natural and historic elements of the site. Examples of the typical living unit configurations proposed are included in the attached supplemental information ex- dents as a part of their basic services. Significant measures are included to eliminate or mitigate any adverse environmental factors with respect to adjacent hibit plan Sheet A1-4. properties or City areas. The proposed project has worked to minimize the total required parking on the site for both the senior living community The proposed plan also provides for a replacement of the single family home now at 1023 Park Street. This replace- and the MACAA school and administrative offices. Most of the senior living community residents will not be driving c.) No displacement of existing residents or businesses is created by the proposed rezoning plan. One residen- ment home is initially proposed to be a temporary sales office for the senior living community but, upon completion of and will be using either community-provided transportation buses or public transportation. Since the MACAA program tial property at 1021 Park Street owned by the applicant is being repurposed for the new MACAA executive offices. In the initial buildings of the main project, will be converted into four age-restricted (62+), affordable rental senior residen- is entirely preschool students and these children primarily arrive on JAUNT busses or other public transportation, the addition four age-restricted (62+), affordable residential units are proposed by proffer for the proposed project. tial units and be included as an adjunct part of the overall senior living community. While the sales office use of one of total need for on-site parking has been minimized. On-site parking has been located wherever possible in landscaped the units is temporary in nature, this use is incompatible with the surrounding R1 zoning. In addition, and in order to areas that are not visible from public roads or adjacent residential areas and has been kept close to the building wher- d.) No existing economic development activities, employment or increased tax base are being discouraged. The accommodate needed parking, a small parking lot is proposed immediately behind the replacement affordable residen- ever possible. Those parking areas that are visible to public roadways and sidewalks are proposed to be pervious proposed rezoning and project will provide for significant economic value to the City including additional residential se- tial houses at 1023 Park. This parking area is partially visible from Park Street and is proposed to be of permeable pavers with appropriate landscaping to minimize the appearance of open-paved parking lots as much as possible. nior housing opportunities, affordable housing units, significantly enhanced tax base of more than $400,000 per year, parking pavers and well landscaped to make its character not like a standard parking lot. Additional screening and landscaping will be provided to minimize visual access to parking areas and to screen those and increased employment opportunities by the creation of up to 85 new full- and part-time jobs, an estimated 700 that may be visible. construction jobs during the project construction, and perhaps most importantly, the preservation and enhancement of Mitigating factors proposed with respect to this potential adverse condition with respect to the replacement houses the existing MACAA programs benefiting low-income families and the Head Start school program. will include the fact that the house will be designed as two age-restricted (62+), affordable residential duplex units and The senior living community and MACAA are interested and supportive of enhanced public transportation opportunities will be returned to residential use as soon as feasible with respect to the completion of the senior living community along Park Street for both residents and staff members. The applicant has contacted the Charlottesville Transportation e.) No undue density or population or intensity of use in relation to existing or available community facilities is cre- and its initial operations. Designations with respect to any signage or other designations of a “sales office” will be in Authority to explore the possibility of extending Route 11 from the North Avenue/Park Street stop to a include a stop ated by this project or rezoning. Due to the nature of the NMSLC senior living community virtually no adverse impacts keeping with a residential neighborhood and will be temporary and aesthetically designed to fit with the overall signage within the MACAA/senior living campus. on City schools, transportation, infrastructure, and other City services are created by this project. The proposed re- and graphics proposed for the project. At the conclusion of its temporary use as a sales office, the residences will be zoning and project plan do consider enhanced community access to natural and historic site features as well as other thereafter used as affordable senior living residences and part of the senior living community. Goals 7, 8 and 9 – Regional Transportation/Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure/Infrastructure Funding. The potentials for new community accessible educational and other program opportunities. The MACAA community based proposed project anticipates working cooperatively and collaboratively with the City and regional transportation author- Head Start school and low-income family support services will be maintained and enhanced by this project. Perhaps Mitigating factors with respect to the parking area behind the 1023 Park Street residence will include pervious pavers, ities to enhance and support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan where appropriate. The proposed improvements to most importantly, the proposed project creates a unique opportunity, through the intergenerational campus and ad- buffering landscaping and trees to minimize its visual “read” as a parking lot, and other site design elements to be pro- the MACAA/NMSLC entrance drive connections at Park Street and Davis Avenue are included as improvements by the jacent location of the Head Start school and senior living community, for seniors and young children to connect and posed in the site plan submission to reduce any adverse impacts from this site plan feature of the proposed plan. The project as detailed on the traffic improvements Exhibit Sheet and subsequent site plan submissions. enrich each other’s lives. developer will make the parking lot space available for community access at appropriate regular intervals. We note also that the adjacent MACAA school facility has main operating hours only from about 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. each f.) No reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood is created by this project. The pro- weekday and the balance of the time most if not all of the 30 some parking spaces will be available for additional or CP Goal 7 Historic Preservation and Urban Design posed rezoning and project creates new residential opportunities for seniors in the neighborhood on land which is not alternate parking. MACAA and NMSLC will have a formal shared parking agreement. currently in residential use. In addition, the proposed project creates through a proffer the creation of four age-re- Goal 1 – Urban Design. The overarching design approach to the proposed project is to provide a wide array of public stricted (62+), affordable housing units in the neighborhood, a donation to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund, and significant potential additional financial resources which the City may utilize to provide affordable housing opportu- 3. SECTION 34-158(a)(6): Whether the proposed use or development will meet applica- benefits that derive from the proposed development of this site to the City of Charlottesville, regional outreaches as nities. MACAA is an enthusiastic and current partner with the City in creating housing opportunities for low income fam- ble general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision reg- provided by the MACAA programs, and to the adjacent neighborhoods and Downtown areas within a financially- viable framework for MACAA and NMSLC. To accomplish these goals, the overall design of the project has focused on pro- ilies. Preservation of MACAA and its programs through the development of this project will enhance the availability of ulations, or the city ordinances or regulations. tecting and enhancing the existing mature landscaping and garden historical features, integrating needed storm wa- future affordable housing in the City. The following ordinance outline and comments track the compliance of the proposed project rezoning request with the ter management features into appropriately-interpreted landscape features where possible in the form of the planned g.) There are no impacts on the school population and facilities. The proposed rezoning and project is for senior required ordinance sections. MACAA Intergenerational pond or planted bio-filter area, and redesigning the project entrance to significantly improve the safety and efficiency of the existing entrance drive. The design of the proposed new structures preserves and re-utilizes the existing “Stone residents and no school or facility related impacts from additional school age children are created. The construction of ARTICLE V. - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Education Campus House,” without significant changes, and places the new school building on the rear of the site and designed as resi- the new proposed MACAA school building for Head Start programs will augment available school facilities in the City. DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Charlottesville, VA dential in character to form an appropriate transitional building between the existing adjacent residential house and the new senior living community structure. The proposed site plan includes specific buffering and planting design ele- h.) No destruction or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts result from this proposed project. The Sec. 34-490. - Objectives. ments to minimize the impact on the one house [1105 Park Street] adjacent to the rear of the property. The design of proposed rezoning and project protect and enhance existing conservation and historic resources on the project site In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment the senior living community structure is located more than 350 feet back from Park Street and is substantially screened and through our joint agreement with the City will enhance public access to these resources. of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning from view from Park Street. The adjacent rear residential yards along Park Street are heavily wooded, and additional commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: screening trees are proposed to further screen these residences from viewing the senior living community building. i.) The project will demonstrate and certify that it is in conformance will all applicable, federal, state and local laws. (1) To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning Model and view shed studies demonstrate that the senior living community building is barely visible if at all from res- district regulations that would otherwise govern; idential properties along Park Street, and the mass of the new building is mostly below the tree canopy screen of the j.) Massing and Scale of the Project The existing “by right” zoning for the parcels is R1. The proposed project provides additional, much-needed senior wooded areas along the 250 Bypass and the Warner Parkway. The predominant potential adverse impact from the proposed project derives from the reality that the building envelope housing opportunities and affordable housing units beyond those which would be possible in an R-1 zoning and at a and massing required to obtain a feasible project and residential density involves a building of larger scale than would density on minimally greater than a “by right” density, significant financial benefits to the City in taxes and other fees, The detailed architectural design of the new senior living community building and the new MACAA school building will generally considered desirable in predominantly residential neighborhood areas. preservation of the natural landscape and other historical resources on the site, and the preservation and enhance- be in keeping with traditional Charlottesville architectural aesthetics and with massing and architectural design guide- ment of the MACAA Head Start and other support programs for low-income families. lines provided in the proposed ordinance narrative sections below. Mitigating factors in considering this potential impact were carefully considered in the overall conceptual development (2) To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and of the design plan and the various details of the proposed design for the project. These are as follows: environmentally sensitive design. Goal 2 – Educational Programming. NMSLC supports efforts to appropriately interpret and provide educational pro- The proposed design of the proposed project concentrates almost all of the proposed development into an efficient gramming for the historic gardens on the site as well as other historical elements of the site. The senior living commu- i.) The Project site has several inherent mitigating attributes and is approximately 350 feet at its closest to Park building for the most part on existing parking lots and non-sensitive parts of the site, avoids impacts on surrounding nity has planned educational programs and will support appropriate architectural, historical, archaeological, and other Street and only then down what will be a wooded-tree-lined entrance drive, which will mostly obscure any view from neighborhoods, and preserves and enhances the natural environment of the site. programs of community interest. Park Street. (3) To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to pro- ii.) On the Warner Parkway west side and the southern 250 Bypass side, the site is more than 200 feet from the mote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; Goals 3 & 4 – Incentives and Tools/Resource Inventory. MACAA and NMSLC support community-based efforts to pro- major 250 Bypass traffic artery and significantly further from the Warner Parkway. The proposed development, while focused on senior housing opportunities, provides various sizes of units with various vide incentives, recognition, and the inventory of historic sites and preservation and specifically those located on this iii.) The proposed project site is located at the center of the 9+ acre site and well back from thick existing mature levels of service and support for specific diverse senior housing and care needs as well as four new, age-restricted, af- project site. trees and heavy buffering plant coverings, which substantially obscure the site visually from adjacent residential neigh- fordable residential units on the Park Street side of the project site. The adjacent MACAA Head Start program provides borhoods. a unique intergenerational dimension of care for seniors and children. The Developer and MACAA note that MACAA Goals 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 – Neighborhood Conservation/Resource Protection/Comprehensive Approach/Entrance Corri- iv.) The north side of the site has one existing large and recently renovated adjacent house [1105 Park St.], which is has as one of its key mission components the facilitation of housing opportunities for affordable housing. MACAA is dors/Sustainable Reuse. MACAA and NMSLC desire to be a significant positive and supportive part of the adjacent bounded at the front along Park Street by the existing “Stone House,” which is proposed for MACAA’s executive offices prepared to work with the City to develop additional programs and resources [including the tax income from this proj- local neighborhoods and the community at large. The proposed project will provide significant educational program- immediately adjacent to Park Street and the proposed new MACAA school building at the rear of the existing Stone ect] as a component of its efforts to meet these goals. ming opportunities, which will be open to the public through the OLLI course offerings and within walking distance to House parcel [1021 Park St]. The NMSLC senior living community abuts the 1105 Park St. house on the rear of the (4) To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open adjacent neighborhoods. The project will also work toward offering appropriate neighborhood access to the historic north edge of the site. The developer is working with the owners of the 1105 Park St. house to devise appropriate land- space; gardens and will preserve and enhance significant portions of the existing tree- and landscaping-character of the exist- scape buffers and tree cover that will mitigate most of the visual site lines to both the MACAA property and the NMSLC While the proposed project is providing only four new, single-family dwellings, it provides for an optimally efficient de- ing site and will provide a range of learning and other community-recreational resources in the connection to the gar- property. We note that this house now looks on the ramshackle existing MACAA buildings and playground and that velopment configuration for the available site and enables the preservation and enhancement of open space, and en- these are at the rear of the 1105 Park Street house lot. vironmental and historical site character and resources while providing much needed senior housing options for Char- dens, the Warner Parkway Trail, and connections to McIntire Park. The design of the project has focused on a com- prehensive approach to development, which will contribute to the community on a number of significant levels within v.) The proposed project will further mitigate potential adverse visual impact by providing significant additional plant- lottesville residents and four new, age-restricted (62+), affordable residential units by proffer. P.U.D. Development Plan a feasible financial and physical approach overall. While not within the entrance corridor design purview, the project ings and buffer landscaping, and through the careful selection of building materials with compatible colors and design, (5) To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; designers are aware of the visual connection to the 250 Bypass, the Warner Parkway, and the surrounding commu- which will attractively blend in the building exteriors of the new MACAA School building and the NMSLC building with The proposed project creates a sense of place integrating the MACAA school and offices with a unified senior living nity. To the extent possible we are providing preservation of existing landscape elements and trees as well as addi- the surrounding landscape cover as much as possible. The height of the buildings has been limited to four stories to community into an intergenerational educational campus. This will be accomplished through a unified landscape plan, tional plantings and the design of the buildings themselves, to minimize any negative visual impacts from these view the ground plane on all sides of the project and the mass of the buildings has been articulated to break up its visual signage, walkway and traffic design, unified design for street and path lighting, and harmonious design of the buildings shed components. For the most part, the buildings are well screened from adjacent neighborhood residential and Park massing. Our goal is to hide the mass of the buildings as much as possible in the surrounding tree canopy and land- on the site both within the development and consistent with the general design of buildings in the City of Charlottesville. Street views, and the structures are predominately under or masked by the existing and proposed tree canopy on the scape buffers on the site. Further, we aim to create a residential scale and character as a transition building for the The parking/event space at the front of the site immediately off of the MACAA Drive entrance is envisioned as a du- Narrative Statement and site. In addition, the general building design, exterior colors, roofing design, and materials will be designed to minimize MACAA school building and an appropriately- detailed traditional building compatible with Charlottesville architecture al-use space which at times during the day when parking loads may be higher the space can be used as normal park- and adverse visual impacts of the MACAA school building, or the senior living community building. for the much larger NMSLC building. Computer modeling of the proposed site and adjacent buildings illustrates that ing. The parking/event space is designed with grass pavers, tree cover landscaping and lighting to facilitate evening Zoning Compliance adjacent residential neighborhoods and residences will have minimal if any visual impact from the project. events. As we noted before, the approximately 30 spaces provided at the MACAA school facility are primarily utilized only between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm on weekdays and provide additional parking for events and in order the provide a A second impact is that the proposed project requests and creates a slight increase in residential density adjacent to clear event space for events during appropriate times. the existing R1 neighborhoods, which is greater than the current R1 zoning for the site and the maximum “by right” (6) To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/ density if one considers single- and two-bedroom senior housing units as dwelling units. The units being proposed are or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; not comparable to the scale of individual single family residential units that would be created in a “by right” scenario. While the senior living community building is larger than adjacent residential neighborhoods, great care has been taken N3 to create natural buffer zones around the project to minimize any visual intrusions to neighborhood residential areas, to design the new MACAA school building to be in the style of a residential building and as a transitional building in keep- ing with the adjacent architectural typology and scale, and to preserve the existing residential “Stone House” on the site in its repurposing as executive offices for MACAA. August 28, 2017 (7) To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topog- (9-15-03(3)) (9-15-03(3)) raphy; Secs. 34-495—34-499. - Reserved. Sec. 34-503. - Sensitive areas. Cultural, historical, and natural features of the site including the adjacent stream, trees, topography, and historical DIVISION 2. - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following areas shall be left natural and undisturbed, except for street crossings, hiking trails, utilities and erosion features are preserved and enhanced by the proposed project and public access will be facilitated through a mutual control devices: agreement with the City. Sec. 34-500. - Dimensional standards, generally. (1) Land within a floodway; and (8) To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adja- The dimensional standards (i.e., restrictions of the height, area, location and arrangement of buildings and structures, (2) Wetlands. cent properties along the perimeter of the development; and lot area requirements, and required yards) and landscaping requirements applicable within a PUD district shall consist The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. Architectural guidelines for the proposed new senior living community building, age-restricted (62+)/temporary sales of: (i) any specific requirements or limitations set forth within this article, (ii) those shown on the approved development 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B office and new MACAA school building are provided to coordinate with each other internally and respect the styles and plan for the PUD, and (iii) those described within any approved proffers. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-11(3); 9-16-13) Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net patterns of adjacent traditional Charlottesville residential buildings. The proposed project development plan generally illustrates the proposed location of buildings, struc- Sec. 34-504. - Parking. 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 (9) To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale ap- tures, lot areas, required yards, and landscaping, which define the project specifics and will be further defined Off-street parking for each use within a PUD shall be provided in accordance with the standards set forth within Article propriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; in detail in the subsequent site plan documents, and which will be submitted to the City for approval. Note IX, sections 34-970, et seq., unless otherwise approved by city council. The proposed new buildings on the site are designed as a unified campus internally with coordination between the new that the MACAA and NMSLC properties may include minor parcel boundary line adjustments to accommodate The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. MACAA school and the new senior living community. Connecting pathways are designed to facilitate the interchange the project entrance drive from Park Street as well as utility and other minor requirements site adjustments of children from the MACAA school to common spaces in the new senior living community building. While the pro- which will be included in the Site Plan submissions for approval. In addition, architectural guidelines for the posed building are larger than adjacent neighborhood buildings, the new structures are located on an predominately proposed MACAA school building, the age-restricted (62+), affordable housing units/temporary sales office, (9-15-03(3); 9-16-13) isolated and large site adjacent to residential neighborhood on two sides and set well back and buffered visually from and the proposed new senior living community building are attached and included as a part of this application Sec. 34-505. - Phased development. adjacent R1 neighborhoods in order to not create adverse scale impacts. for rezoning and the proffer for the age-restricted (62+) affordable housing and donation to the Charlottesville PUDs may be developed in phases, provided the following requirements are met: (10) To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, Affordable Housing Fund. (1) All phases must be shown, and numbered in the expected order of development, on the approved development including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. plan. The proposed development will significantly improve the Park Street, Davis Avenue, and project entrance on Park (9-15-03(3)) While the project will be developed in its entirety in sequence and as quickly as possible, the MACAA School portion Street, and the proposed senior living community and MACAA utilize their own multi-person transit vans, JAUNT, and Sec. 34-501. - Context. of the proposed development plan is designated a Phase prior to the construction of the main senior living community other public [non single vehicle] services wherever possible. (a) Within a PUD district: portion of the project. The proposed phasing will allow for the MACAA programs to be available as rapidly as possible (1) With respect to any building located within seventy-five (75) feet of a low-density residential zoning district, which and to allow MACAA to move out of the way of the second NMSLC phase of the project along with the demolition of (9-15-03(3)) includes R-1, R-1S, and R-2, the height regulations of the residential district shall apply to that building. the existing MACAA buildings. Phasing is shown on sheet 10 of the development plan drawing set. Sec. 34-491. - Permitted uses. The proposed project complies with the ordinance and the senior living community building is outside (2) The open space within each recorded phase may constitute fifteen (15) percent of the gross land area within that Only those uses shown on an approved PUD development plan shall be permitted uses. of the 75 foot required setback from adjacent residential R1 parcels. The proposed MACAA new school build- phase, or all required open space may be provided in the first phase. (9-15-03(3); 9-16-13) ing will comply with the ordinance. The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. Sec. 34-492. - Configuration. (2) No non-residential use shall be located within seventy-five (75) feet of the perimeter of a PUD unless such use is (3) All project data required in section 34-517 for the project as a whole shall be given for each individual phase of A PUD shall contain two (2) or more acres of land. A PUD may be comprised of one (1) or more lots or parcels of land. permitted within the adjacent zoning district at the time of PUD approval. development. The lots or parcels proposed for a PUD, and all acreage(s) contained therein, shall either be contiguous, or shall be The proposed senior living community building is a residential use and complies with the ordinance. The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. within close proximity to one another and integrated by means of pedestrian walkways or trails, bicycle paths, and/or The proposed MACAA school building is currently operating under a permitted special use permit for schools (4) Phasing shall be consistent with the traffic circulation, drainage and utilities plans for the overall PUD. streets internal to the development. City council may vary or modify the proximity requirement. on the 1025 Park Street parcel as provided under the ordinance and the applicant requests that the continua- The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. The proposed project conforms to the required size and configuration required under the ordinance. See attached tion of this school use on the 1021 Park Street be permitted as a part of the PUD application and approval and development plan sheets. using a 50 foot side yard setback on the north R1 adjacent parcel and a 0 foot rear setback against the senior 4. Other pertinent information for the proposed project: living community parcel on 1025 Park Street to the rear. Supplemental Project Information (9-15-03(3); 11-20-06(5); 9-16-13) (b) Except as specifically provided within paragraph (a), above, building height, scale and setbacks of buildings G-1 PUD Concept Plan Narrative and Proposed Building Architectural Massing and Design Guidelines Sec. 34-493. - Required open space. within a PUD shall complement existing development on adjacent property, taking into consideration: a. MACAA New School Building (a) As used within this article, the term “open space” shall mean land designated on an approved development plan (1) The nature of existing uses, and of uses anticipated by the city’s comprehensive plan, adjacent to and in the b. NMSLC Senior Living Community Building for a PUD as being reserved for the use, benefit and enjoyment of all residents of the PUD. Such open space may con- neighborhood of the PUD development site. Where a PUD is established on property that shares a block face with T Park Street Traffic Impact Analysis sist of common areas owned and maintained by a developer, or non-profit corporation or property owners’ association, improved property, development within the PUD facing such existing improvements shall be harmonious as to height, S Project Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations and/or any parkland, hiking trails, drainage area, or similar areas dedicated to the public and accepted by the city. mass, lot coverage, and setbacks; A Typical Senior Housing Units Exhibit The proposed project conforms to the required size and open space configurations required under the ordi- (2) The number, type, and size of the various buildings proposed within the PUD; H Rock Hill Property History – Background and Locust Grove Neighborhood History – Background nance. NMSLC and MACAA will implement shared common space maintenance and access agreements that meet (3) The location of natural, topographical, cultural or other unique features of the site; I Completed Proffer Statement See attached proffer statement. the requirements of the ordinance. See attached development plan sheets. (4) The location of public utilities, public streets, roads, pedestrian systems and bicycle paths, and of associated J All items noted in the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. – Completed (b) The following amount of open space shall be required within a PUD: At least fifteen (15) percent of the gross easements; K Community Meeting – Completed area of all land included within the PUD development site; however, the city council may reduce this requirement in (5) The objectives of the PUD district. MACAA Intergenerational situations where through creative design, or in light of the nature and extent of active recreational facilities provided, it The proposed layout and footprint of the senior living community building and the new proposed MACAA deems the overall objectives of the PUD are best served by such reduction. school building are shown on the accompanying project development plan drawings as well as the proposed Education Campus The proposed project conforms to the required size and configuration required under the ordinance. The appli- architectural design guidelines for the project structures. The development plan drawings illustrate the ap- Charlottesville, VA cant has not requested a reduction of this standard. See attached development plan sheets. proximate location and size of the proposed buildings +/- 15’ and in conformance with all required setbacks (c) Open space must be useable for recreational purposes, or provide visual, aesthetic or environmental amenities. for the senior living community building. Landscape, topography, and natural and cultural resources and The following areas shall be excluded from areas counted as open space: buildable lots, buildings and structures, character of the site are also shown within the development plan drawing set as well as public streets, roads, streets, parking areas, and other improvements, other than those of a recreational nature. The following improvements pedestrian systems and paths and associated easements. Note that some final designation of public and pri- may be counted as part of required open space: playgrounds, ball courts, swimming pools, picnic areas and shelters, vate areas and easements with respect to the natural and historical gardens and Warner Parkway trail systems parks, walking paths and hiking trails, landscaped terraces, open-air plazas, and similar amenities. Land within a flood- remain to be determined in detail and will be finalized at the site plan level of the project submission. way or floodway fringe may be used to satisfy the open space requirement for a PUD; however, not more than thir- While we acknowledge that the proposed project is of greater density and scale than the adjacent residential ty-three (33) percent of such land may be counted towards open space requirements. R1 zoned neighborhoods, we believe that the proposed development meets the intent and sprit of the com- The proposed project conforms to the required size and configuration required under the ordinance. See at- prehensive plan overall and the PUD ordinance provisions. The proposed project preserves and enhances the tached development plan sheets. natural character, topography and historical resources on the site, provides valuable and much needed senior (d) Open space shall be provided within each phase of a PUD, in sufficient amounts to serve the expected uses housing opportunities and significant financial resources to the City with minimal to no adverse impacts on and/or residential population of that phase. the adjacent neighborhoods. Importantly, this proposed project allows for the physical and financial survival The proposed project conforms to the required size and configuration required under the ordinance. See attached of the MACAA and its Head Start and other program services offered in support of low-income families in the development plan sheets. City and regionally. The combined MACAA and senior living community as a unique intergenerational educa- (e) All property owners within a PUD shall have access to the open space by means of a public street, or a private tion and living campus offers an optimal utilization of this important site and provides maximum benefits to street or walkway located within an easement reserving property for such access. the city with minimal costs and adverse impacts. The proposed project conforms to the required access provisions and configuration required under the ordinance. See attached development plan sheets. (9-15-03(3); 9-16-13) Sec. 34-502. - Landscaping. 9-15-03(3)) (a) A portion of the required open space shall consist of landscaped open areas, in an amount equal to twenty (20) Sec. 34-494. - Ownership of land; common areas. percent of the aggregate gross floor area of commercial uses within the development. (a) All property within a PUD shall remain under single entity ownership of a developer, or group of developers, The proposed project complies with the ordinance. unless and until provision is made which insures the establishment and ongoing maintenance and operation of all open (b) In all PUD districts landscaping shall be provided using materials consistent with those required by Article VIII, space, recreational facilities, and other common areas within the development. The developer or developers of the sections 34-861, et seq.) and the city’s list of approved plantings. PUD shall not lease or sell any property within the PUD unless or until the director of neighborhood development ser- The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. vices determines, in writing, that such satisfactory provisions have been made. (c) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b), above, landscaping shall be utilized within a PUD: MACAA is the present owner of parcels 1025 Park Street and 1021 Park Street. 1023 Park Street is (1) To provide visual separations or buffers, as may be appropriate, between uses and areas different in intensity or owned by 1023 Park Street LLC, and New Millennium Senior Living Communities LLC [NMSLC] is the contract character from one another, and between the PUD and adjacent low-density residential districts; purchaser for 1025 Park Street and 1023 Park Street. Following a successful PUD rezoning of the parcels un- The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance. der the proposed development plan, NMSLC will be the owner of record of the 1023 Park Street and 1025 Park (2) To protect and enhance the scenic, recreational, or natural features of a site; priority shall be given to preserva- Street parcels. NMSLC will not subdivide or sell of any of the parcels post PUD approval. (b) Where a property owners’ association is established to own and maintain common areas within a PUD (including tion of existing trees having a caliper of eight (8) or more inches and in-place natural buffers; The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance wherever possible. P.U.D. Development Plan all required open space remaining in private ownership) the following requirements shall apply: (3) As a means of harmonizing the street frontage along the perimeter of a PUD with the street frontage of adjacent (1) The property owners’ association shall be established and constituted in accordance with the Virginia Property properties; Owners’ Association Act, prior to the final approval, recordation and lease or sale of any lot within the PUD; The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance wherever possible. (2) The membership of the property owners’ association, and the obligations of such association with respect to the (4) To minimize the impact of noise, heat, light and glare emanating from a building, use or structure upon adjacent common areas, shall be set forth within a declaration, suitable for recording in the land records of the Circuit Court for buildings, uses or structures. the City of Charlottesville, meeting the requirements of the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act. The declaration The proposed project will comply with these provisions of the ordinance wherever possible. Narrative Statement and shall detail how the association shall be organized, governed and administered; specific provisions for the establish- ment, maintenance and operational responsibilities of common areas and the improvements established therein; and Zoning Compliance the method of assessing individual property owners for their share of costs associated with the common areas. This section is not applicable and MACAA and NMSLC will operate under a private easement mainte- nance and operation agreement which will be provided to the City if requested. (c) All common areas and required open space within a PUD shall be preserved for their intended purpose as ex- pressed in the approved development plan. All deeds conveying any interest(s) in property located within the PUD shall contain covenants and restrictions sufficient to ensure that such areas are so preserved. Deed covenants and N4 restrictions shall run with the land and be for the benefit of present as well as future property owners and shall contain a prohibition against partition. MACAA and NMSLC agree to these provisions. August 28, 2017 PUD Concept Plan Narrative and Architectural Guidelines for the MACAA New MACAA NEW SCHOOL BUILDING NMSLC SENIOR LIVING RESIDENTIAL BUIDLING School Building and the NMSLC Senior Living Community Buildings The PUD Concept Plan is illustrated in detail on the attached Concept Plan Sheets and shows the proposed new en- trance roadway, access and egress points, the location of the 4 new affordable housing units and the New Millennium Senior Living Facility, the Renovated Stone house, and the Proposed new MACAA School building. General Building Envelope Dimensions and Location are shown on the following Concept Plan Sheets 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net FAR DETERMINATION The Site Data Tables on Component 2(b) sheet shows the total combined acreage of the 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 parcels at 9.02 acres or 392,911 square feet of Site Area. Note: the reduction in the total corrected site area is the result of land taken by VDOT for the Warner Parkway and Ramp Construction. Had MACAA anticipated the proposed develop plan it would have sought a development right credit for the .28 acres of land taken by the Warner Parkway expansion but did not do so. Proposed Building Areas: Proposed Maximum Senior Living Center GSF / no more than = 169,000 GSF 180,000 GSF Proposed New MACAA School Building = 12,040 GSF 14,000 GSF Existing Stone House Building = 2,700 GSF 3,500 GSF New Affordable Housing Units [4} = 7,066 GSF 7,500 GSF TOTAL = 190,806 GSF 205,000 GSF FAR CALCULATION = 0.47 0.51 Proposed Building Heights: Senior Living Center – 4 Stories Max Height = 55’ to Building Parapet Edge Maximum – Note: the buildings are Concept rendering of the new MACAA school building looking towards the rear of the Stone House and Park Street. Typical Concept Porch and Elevation Elements 2 generally 48’ to the parapet edge for the max 4 story buildings, but the ground plane drops by approximately 12’+/- Any entry structure adds relief to the front of the school building and its scale and massing is broken up with insets and over the length of the building and the additional 7’ allows for the adjustment of the ground plane transitions over the dormers so that it is in a compatible residential style. The intermediate parts of the building mass above the water table line of the pediment and the upper roof system are building length. light in color to reduce their visual mass and are in an appropriate siding, stucco, or other neutral material. The concept rendering above illustrates the general architectural character of the proposed new MACAA school build- Proposed 4 New affordable homes Maximum Height = 35’ ing which is 2 stories in height plus a habitable attic level. The building is residential in scale, establishes a base at the The scale of the building horizontally is reduced and broken up into a hierarchy of outset bays, porches with column in 2 duplex buildings. ground plane as a pediment and uses compatible traditional materials and matches the larger homes in the area and is edges and traditional railings in a regular pattern of appropriately proportioned bays relative to the upper sections of compatible with the neighborhood aesthetic. The MACAA playground is current planned to be a separation point be- the building above the base pediment. These outset bays may be capped by a dormers which visually connects the Proposed New MACAA School Max Height = 35’ tween the restored and re-purposed Stone House and the new school and establishes a respectful separation from the roof system to the main mass of the building at transition points of the roof sections. Additional porch sections at the front and back of the property to allow for a shift in architectural styles from the Stone House in the front to the more entrance areas and at side entrances and outdoor area connections are anticipated and will use traditional columns Existing Stone House Existing Height of Building with no additions above existing height. traditional siding on the rear school building. and Charlottesville architectural typology in their design. Appropriately proportioned chimneys and other entrance elements such as entry porte-cochere components will similarly follow traditional forms and typology found in Virginia buildings. Unit Numbers and Types Are Shown on the Site Data Table on the Concept Plan Sheets Traditional windows systems are anticipated conceptually using divided light double hung windows in a contrasting Architectural Design Standards RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX AFFORDABLE HOMES color if appropriate and used singly, or in multiples to correspond to the proportions of the exterior sections and interior floor plan layouts. Window layouts should be in alignment and rational to the mass of their building part and wherever MACAA NEW SCHOOL BUILDING The concept rendering below illustrates the general character and context of The architecture and design character of these two duplex homes will follow the typology and character of single fam- possible their internal function. the existing MACAA Stone House along Park Street and the proposed MACAA new school at the rear of the parcel. ily residential homes in the adjacent Locust Grove neighborhood in both scale, height and materials. Materials may The Proposed MACAA new School building is designed to be a transitional building at a generally residential scale, although larger and well buffered by landscaping and trees from the adjacent Stone house and form a scale shift be- include brick, stucco, hardiplank, wood trim, traditional double hung windows, and asphalt shingles. While not required The main entrances for the building will have a porte-cochere and these are conceptually designed to provide cover for MACAA Intergenerational the homes will generally follow the recommended City Architectural design guidelines for infill residential housing. vehicle pickup and drop off. These entrance elements of the building shall be designed in a compatible style to the rest tween the residential scale of the adjacent larger home to the North of the property, the MACAA property and the larger of the building and designed to have a minimal visual impact when seen from Park Street. We anticipate that there Education Campus Senior Living Community building which is deeper on the site and well removed from the residential parts of the neigh- may be more than one entrance porte-cochere entry points but not more than 3 which will correlate to the three unit Charlottesville, VA borhood. Note that some of the tree cover has been removed to illustrate the buildings. types in the building. These shall be scaled so that there is one main entrance point and sub-entrance points visually. The new MACAA School building will be of brick, stucco, and / or hardiplank construction with asphalt shingles or Parking generally and service entry points specifically shall be screened wherever possible. The grade shifts around metal standing seam roofing. The building will have traditional double hung windows and an entrance portico for stu- the building allow for substantial vertical screening of on-site parking and visual screening using vertical grade shifts dent drop off and pick up. The building is located behind the MACAA head start playground which is surrounded by a and walls shall be optimized whenever possible. safety fence which will be a traditional design compatible with other residential fences in the neighborhood. NMSLC SENIOR LIVING RESIDENTIAL BUIDLING Building materials and colors in general shall be neutral and compatible with the natural landscape and tree cover and shall be used to minimize the visual impact of the building wherever possible. Materials will be of brick, stucco, and / Concept Massing and Character Diagrams of NMSLC Senior Living Building or hardiplank construction with asphalt shingles or metal standing seam roofing. Traditional detailing of the building is desired as appropriate to the scale of the structure. The proposed senior living community building is designed to be no more than four stories in height with two ground/ basement levels. The topography of the site drops approximately twelve feet from the front corner of the building Building HVAC, generators, and other exterior mechanical and electrical system components shall be screened, and footprint at the end of the entrance drive to the diagonal corner of the building footprint overlooking the 250 Bypass / acoustically isolated wherever possible. Warner Parkway. The scale of the building and its height, as well as the resolution of the grade shifts visually, are reduced in scale and impact by creating a base pediment around the building and shifting as needed to maintain a visually lower proportion as the grade shifts toward the steeper slopes at the rear of the building. This base is reinforced by the addition of a horizontal banding watercourse line at the top of the Ground level [1st floor ] of the building. Conceptually this base for the building would be in brick material and which will allow the grade shift transitions as the building meets the ground to be resolved in an appropriate manner and in proportion to the overall vertical scale of the building elements above. P.U.D. Development Plan PUD Concept Plan Narrative and Architectural Design Guidelines G1 Concept Aerial Renderings above and below looking from Park Street towards the 250 Bypass Typical Concept of Exterior Elements and Character of Building 1 August 28, 2017 Existing Lane Configuration N Park Street 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 MACAA 175 vpd 450 vpd Davis Drive 25 mph 25 mph Avenue 11,000 vpd 25 mph LEGEND Existing Lane Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes Park Street 552 (421) 21 (22) 16 (13) 5 (0) 2 (1) 2 (0) 1 (0) 2 (4) Inset MACAA Drive (1) 1 Davis Avenue (5) 7 (2) 6 (0) 2 (1) 13 (653) 421 (6) 2 Inset LEGEND Study Intersection LEGEND (0) 1 3 (0) N X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour Site Boundary AM (PM) Pedestrian Crossing Overview Existing Lane Configuration Site Location and Study MACAA Intersections MACAA and Charlottesville, Virginia Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 1 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 2 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Site Trip Distribution Build (2019) Traffic Volumes Approved Development N N N Park Street Park Street Park Street 40% Lochlyn 617 (461) 21 (22) 16 (13) 10 (7) 40% 1 (0) 2 (4) MACAA Davis Site MACAA Davis Site Drive Avenue Drive Avenue (40%) (8) 5 (12) 21 (724) 445 (6) 2 60% (1) 1 54 (32) (60%) (17) 15 MACAA Davis 60% Drive Avenue LEGEND LEGEND (58) 16 XX% Regional Trip Distribution X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour X% (Y%) Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution Recommended Lanes Site Trip Assignment Park Street No-Build (2019) Traffic Volumes Park Street Park Street P.U.D. Development Plan 617 (461) 5 (7) 21 (22) Site MACAA Davis 16 (13) Drive Avenue 5 (0) 1 (0) 2 (4) MACAA Davis Realign and Restripe Site MACAA Davis Drive Avenue Drive Avenue (8) 5 (1) 1 (11) 8 (5) 7 (12) 8 Park Street (1) 13 (724) 445 (6) 2 LEGEND Existing Lane Traffic Impact Analysis LEGEND LEGEND Recommended Lane X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour X' Storage (In Feet) Approved Development Trips Site Trip Distribution and Build (2019) Volumes and MACAA and MACAA Assignment MACAA Recommended Lanes T2 Charlottesville, Virginia No-Build (2019) Traffic Volumes Charlottesville, Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia Figure 3 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 4 Scale: Not to Scale Figure 5 Scale: Not to Scale August 28, 2017 Ramey K emp & Associates Ramey K emp & Associates 4343 Cox Road 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Park St at MACAA Dr - Davis Ave - AM File Name : Park St at MACAA Dr - Davis Ave - PM Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000001 Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Clear Start Date : 1/19/2017 Weather: Clear Start Date : 1/19/2017 Equipment ID: 3295 Page No :1 Equipment ID: 3295 Page No :1 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net Groups Printed- Unshifted Groups Printed- Unshifted Park Street Davis Avenue Park Street Macaa Drive Park Street Davis Avenue Park Street Macaa Drive 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 44 0 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 0 51 0 0 51 0 0 0 2 2 98 02:00 PM 0 71 1 0 72 3 0 1 0 4 1 84 0 0 85 3 0 0 0 3 164 07:15 AM 0 78 0 1 79 7 0 0 0 7 1 81 0 3 85 0 0 0 0 0 171 02:15 PM 1 73 1 0 75 3 0 1 0 4 0 72 4 0 76 2 0 0 0 2 157 07:30 AM 0 109 0 1 110 3 0 1 0 4 0 95 2 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 211 02:30 PM 3 73 2 0 78 1 0 0 0 1 0 106 1 1 108 2 0 1 0 3 190 07:45 AM 0 163 2 0 165 8 0 1 3 12 0 155 0 2 157 1 0 0 0 1 335 02:45 PM 1 97 1 0 99 2 0 1 0 3 0 138 3 0 141 5 0 0 0 5 248 Total 0 394 2 2 398 19 0 2 3 24 1 382 2 5 390 1 0 0 2 3 815 Total 5 314 5 0 324 9 0 3 0 12 1 400 8 1 410 12 0 1 0 13 759 08:00 AM 2 149 10 1 162 6 0 1 0 7 0 82 4 3 89 1 0 0 1 2 260 03:00 PM 0 94 2 0 96 6 0 0 0 6 0 96 3 0 99 5 0 0 0 5 206 08:15 AM 2 102 2 1 107 3 1 0 0 4 1 96 7 3 107 4 0 0 0 4 222 03:15 PM 0 139 6 1 146 3 0 1 0 4 3 125 1 1 130 5 0 0 0 5 285 08:30 AM 1 138 2 0 141 4 0 0 0 4 1 88 2 0 91 1 0 1 0 2 238 03:30 PM 0 93 2 0 95 1 0 1 0 2 1 100 0 0 101 1 0 0 1 2 200 08:45 AM 2 140 5 0 147 5 1 4 0 10 0 102 6 0 108 5 0 0 0 5 270 03:45 PM 0 105 3 0 108 3 0 1 0 4 0 109 1 0 110 3 0 0 1 4 226 Total 7 529 19 2 557 18 2 5 0 25 2 368 19 6 395 11 0 1 1 13 990 Total 0 431 13 1 445 13 0 3 0 16 4 430 5 1 440 14 0 0 2 16 917 Grand Total 7 923 21 4 955 37 2 7 3 49 3 750 21 11 785 12 0 1 3 16 1805 04:00 PM 0 84 1 1 86 2 0 0 0 2 0 116 0 0 116 0 0 0 1 1 205 Apprch % 0.7 96.6 2.2 0.4 75.5 4.1 14.3 6.1 0.4 95.5 2.7 1.4 75 0 6.2 18.8 04:15 PM 1 89 1 1 92 2 0 1 1 4 1 131 0 1 133 1 0 1 1 3 232 Total % 0.4 51.1 1.2 0.2 52.9 2 0.1 0.4 0.2 2.7 0.2 41.6 1.2 0.6 43.5 0.7 0 0.1 0.2 0.9 04:30 PM 0 91 2 0 93 5 0 0 1 6 1 150 0 1 152 5 0 0 0 5 256 04:45 PM 0 111 7 0 118 1 0 2 0 3 1 133 0 0 134 1 0 0 0 1 256 Total 1 375 11 2 389 10 0 3 2 15 3 530 0 2 535 7 0 1 2 10 949 Out Park Street In Total 05:00 PM 0 117 1 0 118 7 0 1 0 8 1 167 1 2 171 2 0 1 0 3 300 Exhibit 1 – Looking to the north on Park Street at MACAA Drive 788 955 1743 05:15 PM 0 105 5 0 110 5 0 1 0 6 0 183 0 0 183 1 0 0 0 1 300 05:30 PM 0 88 0 1 89 9 0 0 1 10 4 170 0 0 174 1 0 0 0 1 274 7 923 21 4 05:45 PM 0 94 2 1 97 6 0 1 0 7 1 122 1 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 228 Right Thru Left Peds Total 0 404 8 2 414 27 0 3 1 31 6 642 2 2 652 4 0 1 0 5 1102 Grand Total 6 1524 37 5 1572 59 0 12 3 74 14 2002 15 6 2037 37 0 3 4 44 3727 Apprch % 0.4 96.9 2.4 0.3 79.7 0 16.2 4.1 0.7 98.3 0.7 0.3 84.1 0 6.8 9.1 Total % 0.2 40.9 1 0.1 42.2 1.6 0 0.3 0.1 2 0.4 53.7 0.4 0.2 54.7 1 0 0.1 0.1 1.2 46 1 Right Thru Total Left Out 37 24 North Davis Avenue 0 Macaa Drive Peds Right Thru 16 In 2 1/19/2017 07:00 AM In 49 12 1/19/2017 08:45 AM Left 7 30 Unshifted Out Total 3 Peds 73 3 Exhibit 2 – Looking to the south on Park Street at MACAA Drive Left Thru Right Peds 21 750 3 11 942 785 1727 Out In Total Park Street MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA Park Street at MACAA Drive / Davis Drive Park Street at MACAA Drive / Davis Drive  MACAA - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2017) Conditions Northbound Left-turn  Lane Warrant Southbound Right-turn Lane Warrant  Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Existing (2017) Volumes  Volumes Build (2019) WARRANT FOR LEFT-TURN STORAGE LANES ON TWO-LANE HIGHWAY Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 7 2 1 21 13 421 2 16 552 5 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 7 2 1 21 13 421 2 16 552 5 AM Peak Hour Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 573 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None 434 Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - PM Peak Hour Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 9 3 1 27 16 533 3 20 699 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1310 702 1314 1313 534 705 0 0 535 0 0 Stage 1 - 742 - 567 567 - - - - - - - NO TURN LANES Stage 2 - 568 - 747 746 - - - - - - - 436 660 OR TAPERS REQUIRED PM Peak Hour Critical Hdwy - 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 10 AM Peak Hour Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - 7 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - FIGURE 3-5 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 159 438 135 158 546 893 - - 1033 - - 481 643 Stage 1 0 422 - 508 507 - - - - - - - Stage 2 0 506 - 405 421 - - - - - - -  Platoon blocked, % - - - -           Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 150 438 126 149 546 893 - - 1033 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 150 - 126 149 - - - - - - - P.U.D. Development Plan Stage 1 - 408 - 495 494 - - - - - - - LEGEND Stage 2 - 493 - 383 408 - - - - - - -   PHV         Approach EB WB NB SB Adjustment for Right Turns HCM Control Delay, s 15.5 14.9 0.3 0.2  HCM LOS C B    ­€­ ‚ƒ€    „ ƒƒ Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Park Street   †­ ‡­ˆ ‰ƒ  Š  ‹ Š Œ‡ˆŽ‘Ž Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio 893 0.018 - - - 353 393 1033 - 0.029 0.077 0.02 - - - - Traffic Impact Analysis HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - 15.5 14.9 8.6 0 -    ‘‡­  Šˆ   ­­ HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A -    ‡­  ŠŠŠ  ­  ŠŠ ‹ HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 0.1 - -  ’Œ Š““”Š‘Ž‹ ŠŠ  •­ ­ Š  ‹ € “Š   – FIGURE 3-6 FIGURE 3-26 WARRANTS FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIGHWAY) T3 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 – “—“  August 28, 2017 MACAA - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2017) Conditions MACAA - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions MACAA - Charlottesville, VA No-build (2019) Conditions 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 5 4 1 22 1 653 6 13 421 1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 7 2 1 21 13 445 2 16 617 5 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 5 4 1 22 1 724 6 13 461 1 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 5 4 1 22 1 653 6 13 421 1 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 7 2 1 21 13 445 2 16 617 5 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 5 4 1 22 1 724 6 13 461 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 1 5 4 1 24 1 702 6 14 453 1 Mvmt Flow 0 1 9 3 1 27 16 563 3 20 781 6 Mvmt Flow 0 1 5 4 1 24 1 778 6 14 496 1 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1192 453 1192 1190 705 454 0 0 709 0 0 Conflicting Flow All - 1424 784 1427 1425 565 787 0 0 566 0 0 Conflicting Flow All - 1311 496 1311 1309 782 497 0 0 785 0 0 Stage 1 - 481 - 708 708 - - - - - - - Stage 1 - 825 - 597 597 - - - - - - - Stage 1 - 524 - 784 784 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 711 - 484 482 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 599 - 830 828 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 787 - 527 525 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy - 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy - 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy - 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Follow-up Hdwy - 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 187 607 164 188 436 1107 - - 890 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 136 393 113 136 524 832 - - 1006 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 159 574 136 159 394 1067 - - 834 - - Stage 1 0 554 - 426 438 - - - - - - - Stage 1 0 387 - 490 491 - - - - - - - Stage 1 0 530 - 386 404 - - - - - - - Stage 2 0 436 - 564 553 - - - - - - - Stage 2 0 490 - 364 386 - - - - - - - Stage 2 0 403 - 535 529 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 183 607 159 184 436 1107 - - 890 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 128 393 104 128 524 832 - - 1006 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 155 574 131 155 394 1067 - - 834 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 183 - 159 184 - - - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 128 - 104 128 - - - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 155 - 131 155 - - - - - - - Stage 1 - 542 - 426 438 - - - - - - - Stage 1 - 373 - 476 477 - - - - - - - Stage 1 - 518 - 385 403 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 436 - 546 541 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 476 - 342 372 - - - - - - - Stage 2 - 402 - 517 517 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB Approach EB WB NB SB Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 16.8 0 0.3 HCM Control Delay, s 16.9 16 0.3 0.2 HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 18.7 0 0.3 HCM LOS B C HCM LOS C C HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1107 - - 438 333 890 - - Capacity (veh/h) 832 - - 312 358 1006 - - Capacity (veh/h) 1067 - - 396 291 834 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.015 0.087 0.016 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - - 0.032 0.085 0.02 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.016 0.1 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 - 13.3 16.8 9.1 0 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 0 - 16.9 16 8.7 0 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 - 14.2 18.7 9.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A - HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.3 0 - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.3 0.1 - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.3 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report Synchro 9 Report Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 RKA Page 1 RKA Page 1 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA MACAA - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions MACAA - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour 1: Park Street & MACAA Drive/Davis Avenue Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1 15 2 1 21 21 445 2 16 617 10 Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 1 17 4 1 22 12 724 6 13 461 7 Future Vol, veh/h 5 1 15 2 1 21 21 445 2 16 617 10 Future Vol, veh/h 8 1 17 4 1 22 12 724 6 13 461 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 6 1 19 3 1 27 27 563 3 20 781 13 Mvmt Flow 9 1 18 4 1 24 13 778 6 14 496 8 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1460 1447 787 1456 1452 565 794 0 0 566 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 1347 1338 499 1345 1339 782 503 0 0 785 0 0 Stage 1 828 828 - 618 618 - - - - - - - Stage 1 527 527 - 808 808 - - - - - - - Stage 2 632 619 - 838 834 - - - - - - - Stage 2 820 811 - 537 531 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 107 131 392 108 130 524 827 - - 1006 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 128 153 572 129 153 394 1061 - - 834 - - Stage 1 365 386 - 477 481 - - - - - - - Stage 1 535 528 - 375 394 - - - - - - - Stage 2 468 480 - 361 383 - - - - - - - Stage 2 369 393 - 528 526 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 94 120 392 96 119 524 827 - - 1006 - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 116 146 572 120 146 394 1061 - - 834 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 94 120 - 96 119 - - - - - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 116 146 - 120 146 - - - - - - - P.U.D. Development Plan Stage 1 347 372 - 454 458 - - - - - - - Stage 1 523 516 - 367 385 - - - - - - - Stage 2 422 457 - 330 369 - - - - - - - Stage 2 338 384 - 498 514 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 24.6 16.4 0.4 0.2 HCM Control Delay, s 21.5 19.3 0.1 0.3 HCM LOS C C HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Park Street Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio 827 0.032 - - - 210 346 1006 - 0.127 0.088 0.02 - - - - Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1061 0.012 - - - 246 281 834 - 0.114 0.103 0.017 - - - - Traffic Impact Analysis HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 0 - 24.6 16.4 8.7 0 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 0 - 21.5 19.3 9.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.4 0.3 0.1 - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.3 0.1 - - T4 Synchro 9 Report Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 RKA Page 1 August 28, 2017 Stormwater Management Narrative/Summary: The proposed development will improve the runoff rates, volumes and velocities resulting from this development prior to being released offsite. A treatment train consisting of 5 different practices will treat pollutants at their source with small integrated subareas, in keeping with low impact development practices. Level I permeable pavers, curb cuts and a dry swale will be utilized within the development and will blend harmoniously with their surroundings. A level I downstream extended detention basin will also be utilized, providing both stormwater quality and quantity treatment downstream from these practices. The best management practice of preserved forest and open spaces will also be used, along with the best management practice of purchasing nutrient credits. Through the use of these (5) five 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B different measures stormwater compliance will be met. Please see the following preliminary Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net stormwater management calculations for additional information. 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 SCS Stormwater Quantity Calculations MAACA REZONING‐ PRELIMINARY STORMWATER Overview: MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS PACKET The proposed development will comply with part IIB requirements. Both storm water quality and quantity requirements will be met and runoff rates, volumes and velocities resulting from this development will be improved prior to being released. Please see the attached preliminary stormwater management calculations for evidence of this. (Compliance will be met through attenuation in an extended detention basin. Routing calculations will be provided with the final plans.) Stormwater Quantity: Date of Calculations A downstream, strategically located proposed level I extended detention basin will treat the runoff for MARCH 28, 2017 this development. It is anticipated that the SCS 24-hr. Peak 1-yr. design outflow will be 20% less than ( Qpre-dev. x RV pre-dev. / RV dev. ). In all circumstances, stormwater quantity compliance will adhere to the requirements setforth in section 9 VAC 25-870-66. Please see the following preliminary stormwater management calculations for additional information. Stormwater Quality: Stormwater quality for this development is achieved through the implementation of (5) Best Management Practices. A level I proposed permeable paver parking lot is proposed providing immediate upland treatment, consistent with LID practices which treat runoff at the source. A secondary dry swale facility in this treatment train is downstream from the permeable pavers and provides additional treatment. A proposed level I extended detention basin is below these two initial facilities and will provide supplemental phosphorous removal. The installation of this facility will require minimal disturbances by its use of a constructed embankment along an oversized swale. This limited construction technique is also in keeping with LID practices and conforms to the existing PREPARED BY: terrain. This design approach also capitalizes and preserves existing vegetation along the route 250 bypass, in keeping with Environmental Site Design Techniques listed in the current Virginia Stormwater Management Handbook. Downstream from these three stormater management facilities is a fourth best management practice. The best management practice of preserved forest and open spaces will be used adjacent to the Scheniks Branch. This too is in line with the current VSMH Environmental Site Design Techniques. A proposed preservation easement will be recorded with this development and its language will prohibit future development and land disturbances within the 200 GARRETT STREET, SUITE K easement. After the use of these four BMPs a fifth and final BMP will be implemented. The developer CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 will purchase any remaining nutrient credits required to meet the minimum required phosphorous removal loading. Currently the plan proposes to purchase a mere 1.47 lbs/yr. 434.293.3719 PH 434.293.2813 FX www.collins‐engineering.com MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA WƌĞͲĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ/ŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƌĞĂ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ;ƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ>ŝŵŝƚƐŽĨŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞĨŽƌtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJͿ Soils Mapping (Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey Online Database) WĂǀĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚĂŶĚƌŝǀĞƐ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞtĂůŬǁĂLJƐ ϰϵ͕ϬϬϬ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ƐĨ ƐĨ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲ͕ϭϱϬ ƐĨ DŝƐĐ͘^ƚŽŶĞtĂůůƐ͕^ƚĞƉƐ͕'ƌŝůů͕ĞƚĐ͘ ϰ͕ϵϬϬ ƐĨ ϳϴ͕ϰϱϬ ƐĨ WƌĞͲĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ/ŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƌĞĂ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ;ƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĨŽƌtĂƚĞƌYƵĂŶƚŝƚLJͿ WĂǀĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚĂŶĚƌŝǀĞƐ ϰϵ͕ϬϬϬ ƐĨ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞtĂůŬǁĂLJƐ ϴ͕ϰϬϬ ƐĨ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϭϲ͕ϭϱϬ ƐĨ DŝƐĐ͘^ƚŽŶĞtĂůůƐ͕^ƚĞƉƐ͕'ƌŝůů͕ĞƚĐ͘ ϯ͕ϲϬϬ ƐĨ ϳϳ͕ϭϱϬ ƐĨ WŽƐƚͲĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ/ŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƌĞĂ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ;ƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶ>ŝŵŝƚƐŽĨŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞĨŽƌtĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJͿ WĂǀĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚĂŶĚƌŝǀĞƐ ϲϵ͕ϵϳϱ ƐĨ WĞƌǀŝŽƵƐWĂǀĞƌƐ ϵ͕ϳϮϱ ƐĨ ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞtĂůŬǁĂLJƐΘWĂƚŝŽƐ ϭϲ͕ϲϳϱ ƐĨ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϱϰ͕ϱϲϬ ƐĨ EĞǁZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐtĂůůƐ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ƐĨ Soils Table (Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey Online Database) ϭϱϮ͕ϭϯϱ ƐĨ WŽƐƚͲĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ/ŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐƌĞĂ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ ;ƌĞĂƐǁŝƚŚŝŶĨŽƌtĂƚĞƌYƵĂŶƚŝƚLJͿ WĂǀĞĚWĂƌŬŝŶŐ>ŽƚĂŶĚƌŝǀĞƐ ϲϵ͕ϴϬϬ ƐĨ WĞƌǀŝŽƵƐWĂǀĞƌƐ ϵ͕ϳϮϱ ƐĨ P.U.D. Development Plan ŽŶĐƌĞƚĞtĂůŬǁĂLJƐΘWĂƚŝŽƐ ϭϲ͕ϲϳϱ ƐĨ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ ϱϰ͕ϱϲϬ ƐĨ EĞǁZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐtĂůůƐ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ƐĨ ϭϱϭ͕ϵϲϬ ƐĨ Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations Note: Soils’ properties are predominantly composed of hydrologic type C soils. S1 August 28, 2017 ��S� Department of �griculture ����N����� ���� Department of ��riculture ���������� ��S� Depart�ent o� ��riculture ����N����C Natural Resources Conservation Service ����� �atural �esources �onservation �ervice ����� Natural Resources Conservation Service ����� �R �� �or�sheet �� Runoff Curve Num�er and Runoff �ro�ect� ���C� Designed �y� ���� �� Date� ��������� T� �� Wor�sheet �� Time of �oncentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) TR �� �or�sheet �� �raphical �ea� Dischar�e �ethod �ocation� �ar� Street � Rte� ��� �ypass Chec�ed �y� SRC� �� Date� ��������� �ro�ect� ���C� Desi�ned ��� ���� �� Date� ��������� Chec� �ne� �resent � Developed � �ro�ect� ����� Desi�ned �y� ���� �� Date� ��������� �ocation� �ar� Street � Rte� ��� ��pass Chec�ed ��� SRC� �� Date� ��������� �� Runoff curve Num�er (CN) �ocation� �ar� �treet � �te� ��� �ypass �hec�ed �y� ���� �� Date� ��������� Drainage �rea Soil name and Cover description �rea �roduct of CN CN (�eighted) � Calculated Chec� �ne� �resent � Developed � Description hydrologic group (Cover type� treatment� and hydrologic condition� percent CN (�cres) � �rea total product� �S� �alue �hec� �ne� �resent � Developed � (�ppendi� �) impervious� unconnected� connected impervious area ratio) total area �hec� �ne� Tc � Tt Throu�h subarea n�a Draina�e �rea Draina�e �rea 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B �mpervious �reas �� ���� ����� D� � C �oods in �ood Condition �� ���� ����� ���� ���� �� Data Description Description Draina�e �rea Description Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net (�resent) �a�ns in �ood Condition (���� �roundcover) �� ���� ���� D� � D� � D� � D� � 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 �mpervious �reas �� ���� ����� D� � C �oods in �ood Condition �� ���� ��� ���� ���� �e�ment �D� (�resent) (Developed) (�resent) (Developed) (Developed) �a�ns in �ood Condition (���� �roundcover) �� ���� ����� �heet �low� (�pplicable to Tc only) Draina�e �rea (��) in �iles� � ������ ������ Woods� �i�ht Runo�� curve nu�ber CN� ���� ���� � �urface description (Table ���) �nderbrush Dense �rass Ti�e o� concentration (Tc)� ���� ���� � �annin��s rou�hness coeff�� n (Table ���) ��� ���� Rain�all distribution t�pe� �� �� � �low len�th� � (total � � ���) (ft) ��� ��� �ond and s�a�p areas spread � � � Two�year ���hour rainfall� �� (in�) ��� ��� throu�hout the �atershed� � �and slope� s (ft�ft) ���� ���� �� Runoff � �ompute Tt � ������(n��)���� � ����� s��� ���� ���� �� �re�uenc���ears � � �� � � �� ���ear Storm ���ear Storm ����ear Storm Drainage �rea Description �� Rain�all� � (�� hour)� inches ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� �re�uency�years � � �� n�a �� �nitial �bstraction� �a� inches ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Rainfall� � (�� hour)� inches ���� ���� ���� n�a �hallow �oncentrated �low� Runoff� �� inches ���� ���� ���� D� � (�resent) �� Co�pute �a�� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� Runoff� �� inches ���� ���� ���� D� � (Developed) � �urface description (paved or unpaved) �npaved �npaved �� �nit pea� dischar�e� �u� cs��in ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� Runoff� �� inches � �low �en�th� � (ft) ��� �� �� Runo��� � �ro� �or�sheet �� inches ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� � Watercourse slope� s (ft�ft) ����� ����� �� �ond and S�a�p ad�ust�ent �actor� �p � � � � � � �� �vera�e velocity� � (�i�ure ���) (ft�s) ��� ��� �� �ea� Dischar�e� �p� c�s To be Routed Thru �� Tt � � � ������ ���� ���� �here �p��u �� � �p ���� ����� ����� S�� �acilit� �hannel �low� � �� �ross sectional flow area� a (ft ) throu�h asphalt � a swale ������ of �hannel �low in ���� of �hannel �low in �tream at �� ft � s �� Wetted perimeter� �w (ft) at � ft � s �� �ydraulic radius� r � a��w (ft) �� �hannel �lope� s (ft�ft) �� �annin��s �ou�hness �oeff� n �� �� � ����r���s��� � � n �� �low len�th� � (ft) �NT�����TE���E�E����E�TEN�E���ETENT��N���S�N������ES��N��E����EMENTS �� Tt� � � ������ ��������������������������������������s) ������ �f ���� ���� ����������s������������������������������f���������� ������ �f �� Watershed or subarea Tc or Tt �����������������������������������������������������������f��� ����� �f (�dd Tt in steps �� �� and ��) 0.18 0.17 ��������������s����������������������������������f����) ����� sf�� ����� sf VRRM_ReDev_V3_MAACA VRRM_ReDev_V3_MAACA D.A. A D.A. A MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Drainage Area A DEQ Virginia Runoff Reduction Method Re‐Development Compliance Spreadsheet ‐ Version 3.0 CLEAR BMP AREAS TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER TREATED (ac) ϯ͘ϰϵ AREA CHECK: OK. Drainage Area A Land Cover (acres) TOTAL MANAGED TURF AREA TREATED (ac) ϭ͘ϵϬ AREA CHECK: OK. 2011 BMP Standards and Specifications 2013 Draft BMP Standards and Specifications A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Totals Land Cover Rv � 3 TOTAL RUNOFF REDUCTION IN D.A. A (ft ) ϳϲϳ ��res����en ��ace (acres) ���� ���� data input cells Pro�ect Name: MAACA ReDevelopment CLEAR ALL TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AVAILABLE FOR REMOVAL IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϴ͘ϱϮ Charlottesville, VA Managed Turf (acres) ���� ���� ���� Date: 3�24�2017 constant values ���er���us ���er (acres) ���� ���� ���� Total Phosphorus Available for Removal in D.A. A (lb�yr) ���� TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVED WITH RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϭ͘ϴϭ TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMAINING AFTER APPLYING RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϲ͘ϳϭ Linear Development Pro�ect� No calculation cells Total ���� 3 ������ Post Development Treatment Volume in D.A. A (ft ) Site Information final results S������������������������������������S��������������������������S Stormwater Best Management Practices (RR � Runoff Reduction) ‐‐Select from dropdown lists‐‐ Runoff Managed Turf Impervious Volume from Remaining Total BMP Phosphorus Phosphorus Load Untreated Phosphorus Remaining Runoff Downstream Practice to be Practice Reduction Credit Area Cover Credit Upstream 3 Runoff Volume Treatment Removal from Upstream Phosphorus Load Removed By Phosphorus Load Post‐Development Pro�ect (Treatment Volume and Loads) Credit (�) (acres) Area (acres) 3 Practice (ft ) Reduction (ft ) 3 (ft ) 3 Volume (ft ) Efficiency (�) Practices (lb) to Practice (lb) Practice (lb) (lb) Employed 1. Vegetated Roof (RR) Enter Total Disturbed Area (acres) � ���� Check: #### 10. Wet Swale (no RR) BMP Design Specifications List: 2011 Stds � Specs ��a� �ege�a�ed ���f �� (��ec ��) �� � � � � ���� ���� ���� ϭϬ͘Ă͘tĞƚ^ǁĂůĞηϭ;^ƉĞĐηϭϭͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Maximum reduction required: 20% Linear project? No ���� �ege�a�ed ���f �� (��ec ��) �� � � � � ���� ���� ���� ✔ ϭϬ͘ď͘tĞƚ^ǁĂůĞηϮ;^ƉĞĐηϭϭͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϰϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ The site's net increase in impervious cover (acres) is: 1.72 Land cover areas entered correctly? Post‐Development TP Load Reduction for Site (lb/yr): 3.28 Total disturbed area entered? ✔ 2. Rooftop Disconnection (RR) 11. Filtering Practices (no RR) ��a� �����e ��sc�nnec���n �� ��� ����s �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� ϭϭ͘Ă͘&ŝůƚĞƌŝŶŐWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞηϭ;^ƉĞĐηϭϮͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϲϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ (��ec ��) Pre‐ReDevelopment Land Cover (acres) ���� �����e ��sc�nnec���n �� ��� ����s �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� ϭϭ͘ď͘&ŝůƚĞƌŝŶŐWƌĂĐƚŝĐĞηϮ;^ƉĞĐηϭϮͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ (��ec ��) A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Totals ��c� T� ���� ��ended ����er �a�� as �er �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� Forest�Open Space (acres) �� undistur�ed� s�ec�f�ca���ns (e��s��ng ��� s���s) (��ec ��) ���� 12. Constructed Wetland (no RR) protected forest�open space or reforested land ��d� T� �r� �e�� �r �renc� �ra�n ��� �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Managed Turf (acres) �� distur�ed� graded for M�cr���nf��ra���n �� (��ec ��) ϭϮ͘Ă͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚtĞƚůĂŶĚηϭ;^ƉĞĐηϭϯͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ���� ���� ��e� T� �r� �e�� �r �renc� �ra�n ��� �ards or other turf to �e mowed�managed �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� M�cr���nf���ra���n �� (��ec ��) ϭϮ͘ď͘ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚtĞƚůĂŶĚηϮ;^ƉĞĐηϭϯͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Impervious Cover (acres) ���� ���� ��f� T� �a�n �arden ��� �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� M�cr�����re�en���n �� (��ec ��) ���� ��g� T� �a�n �arden ��� 13. Wet Ponds (no RR) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� DEQ Virginia Runoff Reduction Method M�cr�����re�en���n �� (��ec ��) ϭϯ͘Ă͘tĞƚWŽŶĚηϭ;^ƉĞĐηϭϰͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Post‐Development Land Cover (acres) ���� T� �a�n�a�er �ar�es��ng (��ec ��) � � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� ϭϯ͘ď͘tĞƚWŽŶĚηϭ;ŽĂƐƚĂůWůĂŝŶͿ;^ƉĞĐηϭϰͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϰϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils Totals ���� T� ���r��a�er ��an�er� �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Forest�Open Space (acres) �� undistur�ed� �r�an ���re�en���n (��ec ��� ���end�� �) protected forest�open space or reforested land ���� ���� * ϭϯ͘Đ͘tĞƚWŽŶĚηϮ;^ƉĞĐηϭϰͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϳϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Managed Turf (acres) �� distur�ed� graded for 3. Permeable Pavement (RR) ϭϯ͘Ě͘tĞƚWŽŶĚηϮ;ŽĂƐƚĂůWůĂŝŶͿ;^ƉĞĐηϭϰͿ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ���� ���� �ards or other turf to �e mowed�managed ��a� �er�ea��e �a�e�en� �� (��ec ��) �� ���� � ��� ��� ��� �� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��a� �� �� Water Quality Calculations Impervious Cover (acres) ���� ���� 14. Manufactured Treatment Devices (no RR) ���� �er�ea��e �a�e�en� �� (��ec ��) �� � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ϭϰ͘Ă͘DĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĞǀŝĐĞͲ Area C�ec� OK. OK. OK. OK. ���� ,LJĚƌŽĚLJŶĂŵŝĐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ * Forest/Open Space areas must be protected in accordance with the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method 4. Grass Channel (RR) ϭϰ͘ď͘DĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĞǀŝĐĞͲ&ŝůƚĞƌŝŶŐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ��a� �rass ��anne� ��� ����s (��ec ��) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Constants Runoff Coefficients (Rv) ϭϰ͘Đ͘DĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞĚdƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĞǀŝĐĞͲ'ĞŶĞƌŝĐ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϮϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ �nnual Rainfall (inches) �� A Soils B Soils C Soils D Soils ���� �rass ��anne� ��� ����s (��ec ��) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Target Rainfall Event (inches) ���� �orest��pen �pace ���� ���� ���� ���� ��c� �rass ��anne� ���� �����s� ��ended ����s �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Total �hosphorus (T�) EMC (mg��) ���� Managed Turf ���� ���� ���� ���� as �er s�ecs (see ��ec ��) Total Nitrogen (TN) EMC (mg��) ���� �mpervious Cover ���� ���� ���� ���� TOTAL IMPERVIOUS COVER TREATED (ac) ϯ͘ϰϵ AREA CHECK: OK. Target T� �oad (l��acre��r) ���� �. Dry Swale (RR) TOTAL MANAGED TURF AREA TREATED (ac) ϭ͘ϵϬ AREA CHECK: OK. �� (unitless correction factor) ���� ��a� �r� ��a�e �� (��ec ���) �� ���� ���� � ��� ��� ��� �� ���� ���� ���� ���� ��a� �� �� TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL RE�UIRED ON SITE (l��yr) ϯ͘Ϯϴ LAND COVER SUMMARY -- PRE-REDEVELOPMENT LAND COVER SUMMARY -- POST DEVELOPMENT ���� �r� ��a�e �� (��ec ���) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AVAILABLE FOR REMOVAL IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϴ͘ϱϮ (Best Management Practices include permeable pavers, an extended detention Land Cover Summary‐Pre Land Cover Summary‐Post (Final) Land Cover Summary‐Post Land Cover Summary‐Post �. Bioretention (RR) TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVED WITHOUT RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) Ϭ͘ϬϬ 1 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVED WITH RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϭ͘ϴϭ Pre‐ReDevelopment Listed Ad�usted Post ReDev. � New Impervious Post‐ReDevelopment Post‐Development New Impervious ��a� ���re�en���n �� �r M�cr�����re�en���n �� �r �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� �r�an ���re�en���n (��ec ��) TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϭ͘ϴϭ �orest��pen �pace �orest��pen �pace TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMAINING AFTER APPLYING BMP LOAD REDUCTIONS IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϲ͘ϳϭ �orest��pen �pace Cover (acres) ���� ���� ���� ���� ���� ���re�en���n �� �r M�cr�����re�en���n �� �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Cover (acres) Cover (acres) basin, preservation easements and a dry swale.) (��ec ��) Weighted Rv(forest) ���� ���� Weighted Rv(forest) ���� Weighted Rv(forest) ���� S������������������������������������S��������������������������S � �orest �� �� � �orest ��� � �orest ��� 7. Infiltration (RR) Managed Turf Cover Managed Turf Cover NITROGEN REMOVED WITH RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϭϬ͘Ϯϰ Managed Turf Cover (acres) ���� ���� ���� ���� ��a� �nf���ra���n �� (��ec ��) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� (acres) (acres) NITROGEN REMOVED WITHOUT RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES IN D.A. A (l��yr) Ϭ͘ϬϬ ���� �nf���ra���n �� (��ec ��) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� TOTAL NITROGEN REMOVED IN D.A. A (l��yr) ϭϬ͘Ϯϰ Weighted Rv(turf) ���� ���� Weighted Rv (turf) ���� Weighted Rv (turf) ���� � Managed Turf ��� ��� � Managed Turf ��� � Managed Turf ��� 8. Extended Detention Pond (RR) Re�ev� �mpervious New �mpervious Cover ��a� �� �� (��ec ���) � ���� ���� ����� � ������ ������ �� ���� ���� ���� ���� �mpervious Cover (acres) ���� ���� �mpervious Cover (acres) ���� ���� ���� Cover (acres) (acres) ���� �� �� (��ec ���) �� � � � � �� ���� ���� ���� ���� Rv(impervious) ���� ���� Rv(impervious) ���� Rv(impervious) ���� Rv(impervious) ���� � �mpervious ��� ��� � �mpervious ��� � �mpervious ��� �. Sheetflow to �ilter��pen Space (RR) Total ReDev. Site Area ��a� ��ee�f��� �� ��nser�a���n �rea� ��� ����s �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� Total Site Area (acres) 8.�2 �.80 Final Site Area (acres) 8.�2 �.80 (��ec ��) (acres) ���� ��ee�f��� �� ��nser�a���n �rea� ��� ����s �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� Site Rv 0.37 0.41 Final Post Dev Site Rv 0.47 ReDev Site Rv 0.34 (��ec ��) ��c� ��ee�f��� �� �ege�a�ed ����er ��r��� � ����s �r �����s� ��ended ����� ����s �� � � � � � ���� ���� ���� ���� Treatment Volume and Nutrient Load Treatment Volume and Nutrient Load (��ec �� � ��) Site Results (�ater �uality Compliance) Final Post‐Development Post‐ReDevelopment Post‐Development Pre‐ReDevelopment Treatment Volume (acre‐ft) ������ ������ Treatment Volume (acre‐ft) ������ Treatment Volume (acre‐ft) ������ Treatment Volume (acre‐ft) ������ Area Chec�s D.A. A D.A. B D.A. C D.A. D D.A. E AREA CHECK FOREST�OPEN SPACE (ac) Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ OK. Final Post‐Development Post‐ReDevelopment Post‐Development IMPERVIOUS COVER (ac) ϯ͘ϰϵ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ OK. Pre‐ReDevelopment Treatment Volume ������ ������ Treatment Volume ������ Treatment Volume ����� Treatment Volume (cubic ����� IMPERVIOUS COVER TREATED (ac) ϯ͘ϰϵ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ OK. (cubic feet) (cubic feet) (cubic feet) feet) MANAGED TURF AREA (ac) ϭ͘ϵϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ OK. Final Post‐ Post‐ReDevelopment MANAGED TURF AREA TREATED (ac) ϭ͘ϵϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ OK. Pre‐ReDevelopment TP Load Post‐Development TP (lb�yr) 7.22 �.3� Development TP Load 9.07 Load (TP) �.34 Load (lb�yr) 3.73 AREA CHECK OK. OK. OK. OK. OK. (lb�yr) (lb�yr)� �re�Re�evelopment T� �oad per acre (l��acre��r) ���� ���� �inal �ost��evelopment T� �oad per acre ���� �ost�Re�evelopment T� �oad per acre ���� Site Treatment Volume (ft3) ϭϰ͕ϰϯϴ (lb�acre�yr) (lb�acre�yr) �aseline T� �oad (l���r) Ma�. Reduction Re�uired Runoff Reduction Volume and TP By Drainage Area (0.41 lbs�acre�yr applied to pre�redevelopment area e�cluding pervious 2.79 (Below Pre‐ 20� land proposed for new impervious cover) ReDevelopment Load) D.A. A D.A. B D.A. C D.A. D D.A. E TOTAL RUNOFF REDUCTION VOLUME ACHIEVED (ft3) ϳϲϳ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϳϲϳ P.U.D. Development Plan TP LOAD AVAILABLE FOR REMOVAL (l��yr) ϴ͘ϱϮ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϴ͘ϱϮ 1 Adjusted Land Cover Summary: TP Load Reduction TP Load Reduction Pre ReDevelopment land cover minus pervious land cover (forest/open space or managed Re�uired for TP LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (l��yr) ϭ͘ϴϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭ͘ϴϭ Redeveloped Area 0.2� Re�uired for New 3.02 turf) acreage proposed for new impervious cover. (lb�yr) Impervious Area (lb�yr) TP LOAD REMAINING (l��yr) ϲ͘ϳϭ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϲ͘ϳϭ Adjusted total acreage is consistent with Post‐ReDevelopment acreage (minus acreage of new impervious cover). NITROGEN LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (l��yr) ϭϬ͘Ϯϰ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬ ϭϬ͘Ϯϰ Column I shows load reduction requriement for new impervious cover (based on new development load limit, 0.41 lbs/acre/year). Total Phosphorus LINEAR PRO�ECT� Post‐Development Re�uirement for Site Area FINAL POST�DEVELOPMENT TP LOAD (l��yr) ϵ͘Ϭϳ TP LOAD REDUCTION RE�UIRED (l��yr) ϯ͘Ϯϴ TP Load Reduction Re�uired (lb�yr) 3.28 TP LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (l��yr) ϭ͘ϴϭ Linear Pro�ect TP Load Reduction Re�uired (lb�yr): N�A TP LOAD REMAINING (l��yr)� ϳ͘Ϯϲ REMAINING TP LOAD REDUCTION RE�UIRED (l��yr)� 1.47 Nitrogen Loads (Informational Purposes Only) �re�Re�evelopment TN �oad (l���r) ����� �inal �ost��evelopment TN �oad (�ost�Re�evelopment � New �mpervious) (l���r) ����� Total Nitrogen (For Information Purposes) POST�DEVELOPMENT LOAD (l��yr) NITROGEN LOAD REDUCTION ACHIEVED (l��yr) ϲϰ͘ϵϬ ϭϬ͘Ϯϰ Stormwater Management Narrative and Calculations REMAINING POST�DEVELOPMENT NITROGEN LOAD (l��yr) ϱϰ͘ϲϲ 3/28/2017 3/28/2017 2 of 2 5:14 PM 1 of 2 5:14 PM S2 August 28, 2017 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA P.U.D. Development Plan Typical Senior Housing Unit Exhibits A1 August 28, 2017 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA P.U.D. Development Plan Typical Senior Housing Unit Exhibits A2 August 28, 2017 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 MACAA Intergenerational Education Campus Charlottesville, VA P.U.D. Development Plan Typical Senior Housing Unit Exhibits A3 August 28, 2017 Rock Hill Forever: Charlottesville's Not-So-Secret Gardens the Rev. Porter's "private public works project" that provided work for the unemployed By David McNair | dave@readthehook.com Forget about the impending Meadowcreek Parkway and the 250 Interchange project for a during the 1930s). Invisible from the road, however, the back half of the gardens may be even Thursday Jul 7th, 2011 minute, as well as the fabulous history of the nearby eight-acre Rock Hill estate, once the more impressive, weaving along the babbling Schenk's Branch creek bed and featuring site of a circa-1820 two-story Federal style house (which, thanks to a mischievous youngster, stretches of the rock wall that rise 10 to 15 feet high. Gloriously high tulip poplars abound, burned down in 1963). Forget that famed architect Eugene Bradbury once called it home, and stone steps ascend into the treetops. and that the Rev. Henry Alford Porter, minister of Charlottesville’s First Baptist Church (Park Ideally, Garges says, she hopes the City purchases the property from MACAA, restores Street), who bought the place in the 1930s, created the extensive rock gardens that one UVA the gardens, and builds a new facility for the Parks & Rec department, which then can 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B architectural historian has called the "most complex residential garden landscapes in all of showcase one of the City's architectural jewels. Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net Charlottesville." 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 But is that likely to happen? More history: The original house, two stories in the Federal style, is built in the 1820s. It "I'm aware of some exploratory conversations that have occurred along those lines," says soon becomes home to the violin-playing brother to James Dinsmore, Thomas Jefferson's Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, "and all I can say right now is that I'm intrigued by the master builder. In 1839, the Reverend James Fife, an ordained a Baptist minister and possibilities." ancestor to eventual Charlottesville mayor Francis Fife, purchases the property. It later Indeed, with $27 million in Federal funds earmarked for the U.S. 250 interchange project, serves as home to architect Eugene Bradbury, who sells it to garden creator Reverend Henry which could get under way by the end of the year (depending on the outcome of a lawsuit Alford Porter in the 1920s. Capt. John W. Gibbs buys it in 1947 and lives there with his Þled by those opposed to it), you'd think the City could could set aside something for the family, but the U.S. 250 Bypass construction begun in the late 1950s dramatically changes preservation of the gardens. the site and Gibbs sells property in 1959 to the group that opens Rock Hill Academy What's more, that May 2010 memorandum of agreement between the City and the Federal during the state's "massive resistance" to racial integration. From 1980 to 1987 the site Highway Administration calls for a rehabilitation plan for the gardens, reconstruction of the serves as the home of the Heritage Christian School. Ironically, the YMCA, which plans to front wall that will need to be removed for the interchange, and for the City to pursue build a controversial new facility in nearby McIntire Park, once called the Rock Hill property ownership of the property and open it to the public. Of course, these days that's more easily home. However, Þnancial troubles force the YMCA to sell the property. In July 2010, former said than done. (now current) City Council candidate Bob Fenwick begins organizing an effort to restore the "Obviously it's largely dependent on funding being available to purchase the Rock Hill] gardens, hoping the City and the Federal Highway Administration won't forget a promise to property," says Norris. "Right now, there are no funds allocated in our budget for it." preserve them as part of the bypass interchange project. Since then, over 200 volunteers have logged about 2,000 hours of work on the gardens. Slideshow feature: Click here to see additional photos of the gardens set to music! • amigo1 July 6th, 2011 | 5:48pm Forget its history as a controversial segregation-era school in the 1960s. Forget that it's If we could get the Paramount Theatre renovated mostly with private money, I bet • 1 now the overgrown back yard of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency • 2 money could be raised to launch a public garden such as this. There are LOTS of big (MACAA), which has expressed interest in selling the property to the City. • 3 players in this city and county who could be interested if the project proceeds just the • 4 Forget the City's and the Federal Highway Administration's promise (broken?) to restore the garden and add it to the park system as part of the new interchange project. Forget the right way. The city would beneÞt immensely from a park/botanical garden such as this. • 5 • 6 limbo the property Þnds itself in while an army of volunteers has been busy unearthing its Thank Dunbarton Oaks, or Maymont, or Gypsy Hill, or Central Park. Might want to reconsider 7 treasures and trying to restore the gardens to their former glory. the extension of the Rio-Melbourne connector we just built!!! • 8 • 9 Forget about all the politics and the history, which you can read about in two Hook stories, • 10 Burned and bypassed: Rock Hill has a ghost of a garden, and Unhidden treasure: Rock Hill ontheroad33 July 6th, 2011 | 8:55pm • 11 estate gardens revealed. Rock Hill Plaza, no thts to 70's. Rock Hill Mall, nope, 80's. Rock Hill Gallareia, uhuh, to 90's. • 12 Rock Hill Green Space and Casual Gardens. Yea...that feels just right. Just go take a look at it. (Or enjoy a musical on-line slideshow tour) Lush land You've driven by it hundreds of times. Go take a walk through the gardens. That's what we Size: 8 acres Previous uses: private estate, school, YMCA did with volunteer Rock Hill gardens restorer Carol Garges on Wednesday, June 29. Garges Vittorio July 6th, 2011 | 9:50pm Water feature: Schenk's Branch Owner: MACAA and over 200 other volunteers have put in about 2,000 hours of work since they began This is a zoning/weed ordinance plain and simple. Let your property get overgrown and House: burned down 1963 Purchased: $700,000 in 1993 clearing away brush, repairing walls, and adding plantings and features to the gardens last see what happens. Just because MACAA owns it, why is it immune to ordinance? They Today's buildings: 22,000 square feet Assessed today: $2.2 million year. let it go derelict, then it was celebrated that volunteers cleaned it up. "It's an incredibly unique place," says Garges, "and we just hope it can be preserved." Also, look at the SIX FOOT TALL weeds growing along the city's CAT transit bus shop on Avon St. extended in the county. Albemarle should cite and Þne the city for derelict The front of the gardens has been revealed to passing traffic on 250, showing the elaborate stonework found on site (a result, as UVA architectural historian Daniel Bluestone put it, of property. MACAA Intergenerational What a nasty properties, both MACAA and CAT, right there in entrance corridors. Education Campus Charlottesville, VA P.U.D. Development Plan Rock Hill Property History H1 August 28, 2017 Nicolas Meriwether II (1665-1744) Nicholas was born in Surry County and died in Albemarle County. Greek Revival town hall was erected by a joint stock company in 1852 and provided room for lectures, He was the son of Nicholas Meriwether, the first to emigrate from England to Virginia, and his wife, concerts, and thespian productions (Levy Opera House, 350 Park Street). Gas became available for Elizabeth Woodhouse. Nicholas, II, married Elizabeth Crawford (died 1762), daughter of David homes and offices in a restricted area in 1857,and the telegraph reached Charlottesville in 1860. Crawford, a large land owner in New Kent County. Along with his son-in-law, Robert Lewis, Nicholas “pushed out to hitherto unoccupied lands in Piedmont, Virginia.“ Both took out grants for themselves As with other Virginia cities, Charlottesville's growth was halted by the Civil War. During this period of thousands of acres, being good judges of fertile, well watered selections.” Nicholas acquired large Charlottesville served as a Confederate hospital center. The town's wartime medical contributions are land grants in Hanover County (later Albemarle and Louisa Counties) from the Royal Governor and reflected in a letter appearing in the Richmond Examiner in August of 1861, the King’s Council of Virginia totaling 17,952 acres. This grant included the “Clover Fields,” “Castle Hill” and “Belvoir” tracts. Another grant of 1,020 acres included his home “The Farm”. Charlottesville is now a vast hospital for the sick and wounded of our army. A more salubrious 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B location for such a purpose could not well have been chosen, to say nothing of the warm-hearted and Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net Nicholas and Elizabeth had nine children, four sons and five daughters and most of these offspring noble-minded people, whose highest pleasure and chief delight consists of ministering to the comforts 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 received large gifts of land during their father’s lifetime. Nicholas III (1699-1739) married Mildred and wants of our disabled soldiers. Thornton (1721 -1778). After her husband’s death, she married Dr. Thomas Walker (1715-1794) in The agricultural character of Charlottesville during the post-war years was recalled by W. W. Waddell 1741. Through her late husband’s estate, Dr. Walker gained access to the land and house, “Castle Hill”, in an account delivered to the Albemarle Historical Society in 1940: Old House at The Farm an estate of 1,650 acres that Walker later expanded the property to 4,300 acres. Their daughter, Mary Walker (1742-1824) married Nicholas Lewis (1734-1808) in 1760, uncle of Meriwether “The town was surrounded by about half a dozen large farms. On the northeast the Sinclair Owned by Mr. George R. B. Michie, a charter member of the 1914 Albemarle Golf Club located on the Lewis the Secretary to Thomas Jefferson and together with George Rogers Clark led the Discovery Estate (Rock Hill) ran up to High Street and down to the river, the section now known Marchant tract and president of the People’s National Bank at Third and Main. Miller School’s annual George Corp to the Pacific Ocean. as Locust Grove. On the southeast and south the Brennan Estate and Mr. Slaughter Ficklin's farm R. B. Michie Award is presented to a senior who most exhibits signs of being a life-long lover of the written ran to the C & O Depot. On the southwest was the Fife Estate which is now covered by Fifeville and word. Albemarle County, formed out of the western section of Goochland County in 1744~ was named for ran up to the Southern Railroad. The Colonel T. L. Preston and Andrew J. Craven farms were on the William Anne Keppel, second Earl of Albemarle and Governor of the Virginia Colony from 1737 to northwest and north and extended to the old line of the Southern Railroad. This section is now 1754. It was formally organized in 1745 with the placement of the county courthouse at Scott's Preston Heights and Rose Hill. The Farm (1781, 1825) (12th Street and Jefferson) Two buildings comprise the core of “The Farm,” an eighteenth century farm that lay east of early Charlottesville. Nicholas Lewis House Landing (present day Scottsville) on the James River. The county underwent boundary reductions in You were on country roads when you left East High Street, crossed the C & 0 Railroad, or left the foot (1735-1770): All that remains of the 18th-century era of The Farm is what was originally an 1761 and 1777 from which five counties and parts of two other counties were formed. of Beck's Hill, which after all were not much worse than the town streets. outbuilding, likely the kitchen or cook’s house. Now in the middle of a residential subdivision, it is As a result of the first land reduction, the county seat was moved to a more central location, and 1,000 Much of the town's extant architecture dates from the period of Victorian prosperity. Residential and surrounded by mature hardwood trees and retains its 18th-century view of Monticello. An example of acres of land were purchased from Colonel Richard Randolph in 1761. The site chosen was situated commercial structures reflect a local tradition of Victorian eclecticism and vernacular adaptation. pre-Revolutionary vernacular architecture for either the Nicholas Meriwether (1735) or the just west of the Rivanna River water gap through the Southwest Mountains and was on the Three Notable are the residential structures found along Park Street. Writing as early as 1874, James Nicholas Lewis (1770) plantation, it was a two-room, one-story, hall and parlor type house with two Notch'd Road, the main route leading west to the BlueRidge. This land was conveyed in trust to Dr. Alexander commented on this area's architectural character: outside chimneys. In the 19th century, it was enlarged to create a second floor. In 1909, George R. Thomas Walker of Castle Hill, who drew up the earliest deeds and offered prizes to encourage B. Michie bought the property and used the structure as an outbuilding, and, after 1952, Eugene The residences on this street are built in good taste and their situations are lovely and picturesque, settlement. On December 23, 1762, the General Assembly decreed, and are well calculated for persons of means and leisure. Doubtless, in time to come, the lands Beagle added a garage using brick walls from an earlier outbuilding. The house deteriorated until 2000, when it was acquired by architect Michael Bednar and restored. The property is on the ...that fifty acres of land, contiguous to the courthouse of Albemarle County, have attached to these dwellings will be divided and subdivided to make room for other households.“ National Register of Historic Places. been lately laid off into lots and streets for a town, which would be of great Despite Alexander's concern for the future of Park Street, the area has retained its architectural advantage to the inhabitants of that county, if established a town for the reception integrity over the years. of traders... That from and after the passing of this act the said fifty acres of land, so laid In an age when water transport was crucial, Charlottesville, located on a small creek running into the Locust Grove Neighborhood Locust Grove (1840) (810 Locust Avenue at the corner of Locust Avenue and Hazel). This Greek-Revival plantation Rivanna River, had no direct connection to the outside world. As are result, in the heyday of the The majority of housing in the neighborhood are single-family. Although the older houses in the house was built for George Sinclair (this fact needs more canals and turnpikes, commercial and transportation activity passed to Scottsville to the south. neighborhood were built as a part of the Locust Grove subdivision in the 1890’s, the majority of the research) around 1840 on what became Locust Avenue—its However, due to its position as county seat and as the site of the University of Virginia, the town did neighborhood development was constructed between 1940 and 1970. St. Charles Place, which namesake. At the time, however, this structure was actually not totally stagnate. In 1836 it could boast four churches, three large and commodious hotels, one completed construction in 2008, is the newest residential section of the neighborhood. a subdivision of “The Farm,” which dated from 1825. tavern, two bookstores, two drugstores, twenty general mercantile stores, one girls' school, one boys' As late as the 1950’s, a rural flavor was seen in the remaining dirt roads, barns and open space in the Locust Grove was eventually subdivided itself, as part of a school, one preparatory school, a circulating library, a weekly printing office, numerous professions, a neighborhood. In the 1960’s the Rt. 250 Bypass was constructed, which changed the identity of the suburban residential development begun in the 1890s. The volunteer fire department, and "about 200 large and handsome houses, generally of brick neighborhood. Prior to the construction of the Bypass, Watson Avenue was once a main thoroughfare property still maintains a dominating, if subtly observed, construction." The population stood at approximately 957. for travelers heading east from Charlottesville across the Free Bridge towards Richmond. Historic presence in the area as its largest lot. Its smokehouse and The coming of the first railroad insured the continuation of Charlottesville's growth and brought the Enderly, on Watson Avenue, was once used as a “tourist home” and provided lodging for unattached kitchen are the only outbuildings of their type beginnings of industrial development. The first rail line of the Louisa Railroad Company, better travelers. (Enderly built ca. 1859 in the greek Revival style, was the home of William F. Gordon, Jr. in the Locust Avenue neighborhood. A two-story brick barn known as the Virginia Central (now the Chesapeake and Ohio), entered Albemarle County in 1848, during the 1860’s. Gordon served as clerk of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1859-1865. He was once associated with the property now serves as a single-family residence (818 Locust Avenue) to the reached Charlottesville in 1850, and provided Piedmont to Valley service by 1852. After 1852 temporary secretary of the convention that met in Richmond in 1861 to debate Virginia’s Secession to west. Charlottesville was also served by the Orange and Alexandria line, which used Virginia Central tracks Confederate President Jefferson Davis in Montgomery, Alabama. From 1861 to 1862, Gordon was a as far as Gordonsville. By 1860 this line extended to Lynchburg. These railroads provided are liable, private in the 19th Virginia Infantry. He represented Louisa county in the House of Delegates Nicholas Lewis (1734-1808) - Born at “Belvoir”, the Lewis family home, the son of Robert Lewis (1875-1877). constant, all-weather means of communication and transportation. One result, partially due to the (1704-1765) and Jane Meriwether (1705-1757). Nicholas married Mary Walker (1742-1824) in influx of Irish railroad workers, was to increase the population from 1,890 in 1850 to 2,600 in 1853. River Road is a commercial and industrial area on the eastern edge of the MACAA Intergenerational 1760 at Castle Hill, her home. He was a surveyor and planter who fathered twelve children at “The Farm” where he died. He and his wife were buried in the Lewis graveyard now part of Riverside The Statistical Gazetteer of 1855 describes Charlottesville as "a flourishing town" having four churches, two banks (Farmers Bank of Virginia and Monticello Bank) l6 and four newspapers. A neighborhood, with Long Street providing other commercial services. Locust Grove’s natural and recreational resources include McIntire and Pen Parks, an extensive Education Campus cemetery. Charlottesville, VA walking trail through the neighborhood along the Rivanna River and Meadow Creek. Northeast Park is a neighborhood meeting place in the center of the community. The pedestrian bridge connecting Northeast Park with the neighborhood is also a valued Popular history has it that Tarleton camped under a giant oak tree located at what is now High and resource. Ninth streets, though some believe one of the massive ancient oaks that sit in Bednar's front yard is the real "Tarleton Oak." "It's rather extraordinary," K. Edward Lay, a University of Virginia architectural historian, said of the house's history. Lay said the Farm's similarity to the house Jefferson built at Edgehill in Albemarle County, along with Washington Post September 1995 History of The Farm its many features in common with Monticello and buildings on the Lawn, mean "it's almost certain" it was built by Jefferson's master builders, William B. Phillips and Malcolm Crawford. Lay, who has University of Virginia architect Michael J. Bednar was looking for a fixer-upper a couple of years ago. researched about 2,200 historic buildings in Charlottesville and Albemarle County for an What he and his wife found down an unassuming dirt road not far from Court Square was a near- architectural history he plans to publish, may be as responsible as anyone for rescuing the house from forgotten piece of Charlottesville history. ruin. A moldering two-story brick house with Tuscan columns lay barely visible behind overgrown brush. After he and some students completed a study of the Farm in 1992, Lay convinced Bednar and The once grand Rock Hill estate. Covered inside and out with poison ivy vines, it had been condemned and its owner was using it for Lawson, who were searching for an old house to renovate, to look at it. PHOTO FROM BOB FENWICK WEBSITE storage. "I mentioned it to them that they ought to look at this house because it was run-down," Lay said. In Little could passersby know that the decrepit 1820s house on Farm Lane once was inhabited by a 1909, the house was bought by George R.B. Michie, who in 1896 had founded the Michie Company, a University of Virginia professor who later was murdered outside his home and, for a few days, by Civil law publishing house. The Michie family sold the property in 1948 and the house was turned into the War Brig. Gen. George Armstrong Custer. Or that its builders were probably the same ones who Hillcrest Nursing Home and, later, apartments. However, restoring the Rock Hill gardens has been on the radar of local preservationists for Thomas Jefferson employed to construct the University of Virginia's buildings. By December 1993, though the house was on the National Historic Register, it had been left vacant for some time, especially after it was discovered in 2008 that the historic landscape would be Now Bednar and his wife, Elizabeth Lawson, an architect and building planner for the university, have about a decade. Its owner at the time, former Charlottesville postmaster Eugene Beagle, used it for affected by the interchange for the Route 250 Bypass and the future Meadow Creek Parkway nearly restored the home known as "The Farm." storage after city fire officials condemned the structure. (part of which opened Tuesday, October 12 as a temporary Rio Road construction detour). "It's wonderful to be in a historical place like this that has so many associations with the past," Aside from the poison ivy growing rampant, the house's original majestic rooms had been subdivided Bednar, 53, said while sitting in his living room, which has 12-foot ceilings, triple-hung windows and Pedestrian and bicycle access into McIntire Park has been designed to pass through the for apartments and pipes from a sprinkler system snaked along the ceilings. foot-thick walls that make whispers echo and gives visitors the feeling of being at Jefferson's own intersection, but preservation activists argued that the Rock Hill gardens should have been Bednar and Lawson began the expensive renovations and moved in seven months later while still home, Monticello. completing them. The work is now 95 percent finished, Bednar said. studied as a place that would provide such access to McIntire Park. The house was built about 1826 for John A.G. Davis, a Middlesex County-born lawyer who had moved Lawson believes it was fate that brought two architects to the home, which might have been lost to In the 1960s, the property’s cluster of nondescript buildings fronting Park Street served as a to Charlottesville two years before to practice law. Davis later joined the university's law faculty and history had it not been rescued. Bednar seems humbled by his role. segregation-era school called Rock Hill Academy. Before that, Rock Hill was a private estate became chairman of the faculty. He moved into one of the Pavilions on the Lawn but held onto his "Both of us really see this as a house that really doesn't belong to us," he said. "We're just the tenants whose main house has been demolished but whose extensive gardens comprise vast stone large property as a farm and weekend retreat. and owners during this time. "It really belongs to Charlottesville -- it belongs to the community," he terraces recently gaining visibility from the U.S. 250 Bypass as the result of the clean-up. On the night of Nov. 12, 1840, Davis heard gunshots on the Lawn and, when he went outside to see said. what was amiss, found a masked student lurking about. Davis tried to remove the mask and the The garden was designed and built in the 1930s under the auspices of Reverend Henry student shot and mortally wounded him. Davis's death led to the creation of University of Virginia's Alford Porter, the minister of the Charlottesville's First Baptist Church (Park Street) before P.U.D. Development Plan Honor Code, which still requires students 150 years later to sign an oath against lying, cheating or retiring in 1945, and his wife Elizabeth B. Porter,who purchased the mansion from architect stealing at the university. Eugene Bradbury in the 1920s. (owned the property from January 1930 until December Davis's widow sold the house in 1848 to Charlottesville resident William Farish, who transferred the 1947) Bradbury, who did not design the mansion, purchased it in 1909. It burned down in the deed to his son, Thomas Farish. 1960s while Rock Hill Academy was using it for classrooms. In the waning weeks of the Civil War in March 1865, Union troops commanded by Gen. Philip Sheridan raided central Virginia. Commanding Sheridan's third division was the brash Custer. Unhidden Treasure: Rock Hill Estate Gardens Revealed. Porter's garden included a series of boxwood arrangements, a monumental series of stone garden terraces with stone stairs and walks, a stream section along Schenck's Branch, a "At Charlottesville, Custer was met by a delegation of citizens headed by the mayor, who handed him the keys of the city and of Thomas Jefferson's own University of Virginia, in token of surrender," by David McNair of The Hook October 2016 small lake on the southern boundary, and a woodlands section with stone switchback trails. Locust Grove according to "The Custer Story," edited by Marguerite Merington. The gardens of Rock Hill, a historic Park Street estate that's now the overgrown back yard of "The Rock Hill garden is among the most complex residential garden landscapes in all of Neighborhood History Custer set up a temporary headquarters at Thomas Farish's house. Meanwhile Farish, a MACAA, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, are getting a makeover thanks to Charlottesville," says Daniel Bluestone, associate professor of architecture at the University Confederate officer apparently unaware of his houseguest, tried to return home in civilian some community activists. of Virginia. clothing to check on his family. He was captured and brought before Custer as a spy. Sheridan Event host Sabrina Youry convened teams of volunteers on Sunday, October 10 to remove "I believe that this was Reverend Porter's private "public works" project that aimed to ordered Farish executed and a gallows and scaffolding were built in short order on his front deadfall and debris to from what she calls a "magniÞcent, but neglected" eight-acre space. provide work for the unemployed during the 1930s," adds Bluestone. "The rock for the walls lawn. "What better way to bring appreciation/awareness/reverence for the environment than to and the paths and the terraces was all quarried on the site." But Custer intervened on Farish's behalf and Sheridan pardoned the home's owner. offer the community a beautiful, accessible green sanctuary," Youry said in an email before The house sits on a part of a much larger property originally owned by Nicholas Lewis, uncle of the event. Afterward, Youry described the turnout as "great," with over 20 people showing up For years, though, the gardens have been hidden by neglect and the resulting overgrowth, a H2 site perhaps scorned since the creation of the whites-only Rock Hill Academy which opened explorer Meriwether Lewis. It was somewhere on the property that British Col. Banastre Tarleton in to lend a hand. June 1781 camped on his way to capture Thomas Jefferson at Monticello during the Revolutionary as part of massive resistance to court ordered desegregation. From 1980 to 1987 the site War. was also the home of the Heritage Christian School. In a story familiar to many in central Virginia, Louisa County native Jack Jouett, hell-bent on "The irony is that Reverend Porter was a progressive on issues of race," says Bluestone, horseback, beat the British to Charlottesville and warned Jefferson to flee. "preaching tolerance, inclusion, and integration between the races." August 28, 2017 In fact, Bluestone says that in his will When the estate was offered for sale in 1860, the posted advertisement noted several key Porter left his estate to Virginia Union features, including rock fencing along the perimeter, possibly constructed using stone SchenkÕs Branch fed into a gold Þsh pond University to establish an endowment on the Rock Hill property before the quarried on-site. By 1909, the property had been reduced to 7.7 acres containing a for the training of African-American 250 By-Pass cut through. circa-1820s residence and a distinctive stone wall enclosure. Photo courtesy Daniel Bluestone Baptist ministers. Sections of that rock wall on the southwest side of the property were realigned in the 1950s However, had Bob Fenwick and the during construction of the Route 250 Bypass. In 1963, during the site’s tenure as the Rock volunteers not provided a clearer Hill Academy private school (1959Ð1979), the historic house was destroyed by Þre. Today, view of the gardens to drivers on 250, the Rock Hill Landscape remains as evidence of the property’s storied past. 1006 East Jefferson Street, Suite B much of this history, along with the Charlottesville, Virginia n www.lpda.net garden itself, might have remained An Eclectic and Picturesque Landscape Early photographs of the property indicate that the Porters incorporated pre-existing features 434ž 296ž 2108 n Fax 434ž 296ž 2109 hidden. such as the rock-lined driveway, orchards, and two stuccoed brick gateposts at the main "They are showing the extraordinary entry. Based on construction methods and size of some vegetation, Dr. Porter is believed to spaces and the Þne bones of the garden," says Bluestone. have added 58 early 20th-century Picturesque elements to the landscape’s design, such as plants" and many different gardens. In rough-cut stone features, an artiÞcial pond, and hardy evergreen plantings, to balance the addition, those stone parterres once Worried that the City and the Federal man-made and natural environment of the site. Dr. Porter used architectural features like surrounded the entire property, outlined the driveway and the terraced gardens which held a Highway Administration, might not rock walls and stone steps to manage the rugged terrain, particularly in the formal garden spring-fed lake and an island at its center. follow through on an agreement, according to a May 2010 along the southwest side of the lot where terraces and a number of stairways set the space "I remember there was a huge carved eagle with its wings spread wide on the face of the memorandum, to restore the garden apart from the wooded, natural area in the northwest corner. In direct contrast to the rigidity house," says Gibbs, who lived there with her father, mother, her two brothers during the and add it to the park system, of the formal garden, the woodland area is marked by stone-lined switch-back trails, an 1950s. "I believe an article at the time mentioned the enormous expense and effort that Dr. Bluestone says the current effort to outdoor Þreplace, and carefully crafted ÒnaturalÓ scenic vistas into McIntire Park and along Porter went to to create his amazing landscape. It was deÞnitely not low maintenance." restore the gardens is, in part, a Schenk’s Branch. The Porters planted boxwoods, hollies, and rhododendrons, as well as Lay says the original house at Rock Hill was built in the 1820s for the Scotch-Irish Leitch "provocation to make sure the city beech, pine, and hemlock trees throughout the landscape. family. In 1839, the Reverend James Fife, a Scotsman who became city engineer for and the FHWA deliver on the Photos courtesy of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society. Richmond, and was ordained a Baptist minister, purchased Rock Hill. "Former Charlottesville commitment." mayor Francis Fife descends from this Fife," says Lay. "The gardens are really impressive," says Bluestone, "now that you can see them." In the 1930s, Reverend Henry Alford Porter, the minister of the Charlottesville’s First Baptist Church (Park Street), purchased the property from famed local architect Eugene Bradbury and began to create the extensive gardens. Origins of a Name The name “Rock HillÓ was Þrst Burned and Bypassed: Rock Hill Has A Ghost Of A Garden by David McNair, November, 2010 the Hook used in the 1820s to describe a 66- "It's important as the home of the violin playing brother of Jefferson's master builder, James acre farm carved Dinsmore's, and as the home of the very capable architect Eugene Bradbury," says famed from the holdings UVA architecture prof. Ed Lay. "And of course the stone-walled parterres are perhaps the only ones remaining in the city, which were used for crops and ßower gardens facing the of Thomas Walker southern sun." Lewis, cousin of UVA architecture prof. Daniel Bluestone, who has been leading tours of the property, calls it American among the "most complex residential garden landscapes in all of Charlottesville." MACAA Intergenerational explorer Meriwether Lewis. Indeed, Mary Gibbs Lane, whose father, the late Capt. John W. Gibbs bought the 8-acre property with the two-story house at auction in 1947, says there were "hundreds of amazing Education Campus Charlottesville, VA became too much for her father to maintain, and they ended up selling it in 1959 to a group called the Charlottesville Education Foundation. In September 1958, after Lane High and Venable Elementary Schools were closed as part of the state's "massive resistance" movement to defy a federal order to integrate the schools, the Foundation, headed by long-time former UVA Dean Ivey F. Lewis, sought to allow people to "exercise their freedom of choice in attending sound, segregated schools "by creating a private school named Rock Hill Academy. Such schools became known as "segregation academies." "My mother worked at the Rock Hill Academy school for over 20 years, including the transition to Heritage Christian a few decades later," says Charlottesville resident JoAnne Behrendt Kice, who points out that the school's hard line on segregation softened over the years. "My mother remembers several children of color attending the school during this period," she says. After the sale, the main house was used as the school's administration building and contained a library in what had been the Gibbs' dining room. The house came to an inglorious end in 1963. "Some youngster broke into it and started a Þre, by accident we think," says Gibbs. "The Þre did much damage to the interior of the house but left it intact enough for us to enter it and survey itÐ- even the second ßoor." The Foundation, however, decided that restoring the house was not cost-effective. "So the house was dismantled," says Gibbs. "We're not aware that any of it was salvaged, even the marble Þre places. It was a sad day." Compiled by Dian McNaught A view of the 250 By-pass. November 30, 2016 PHOTO BY DANIEL BLUESTONE P.U.D. Development Plan Gibbs describes a 10 feet deep lake fed by Schenk's Branch, which at Þrst fed into a small goldÞsh pond Porter had created on the upper portion of the property. On the far side of the lake, a natural waterfall ßowed over a Japanese rock garden in the front corner of the property closest to McIntire Park. Before the co/*********nstruction of the 250 By-pass, Gibbs described it as a "truly spectacular county property" that actually had a Rugby Avenue address. She says the by- pass construction in the late 1950s-1960s dramatically changed the site, as it cut off the Locust Grove Japanese garden and the front wall. Up until that time, Gibbs says her father was a "devoted Neighborhood History steward" of Rev. Porter's creation who would hand-prune the English boxwoods, hand-spray the apple orchard, and regularly aerate the grounds with a heavy push roller with spikes. "Dad was a retired military officer who had a passion for nature, and hard work," says Gibbs. "Believe it or not, Dad groomed and maintained the entire property by himself without a crew or yard service." Gibbs also recalls that they kept a single cow on the property. In recent weeks, former City Council candidate Fenwick has gotten assistance from a cadre H3 of volunteers trying to bring back the skeletal remains of the parterres. As for the missing house, Gibbs describes it as a two-story Federal built of stone and then stuccoed and painted a wheat color with dark brown trim, and later painted white with dark black-green trim. The house had 10-foot ceilings, four-hand-carved Italian marble Þreplaces, and two hand-carved and curving walnut banisters. Eventually, she says, the property August 28, 2017 Attachment 6 Meeting Date October 10, 2017 Minutes Excerpt: MACAA Public Hearing Comments: John Hossack, 617 Davis Avenue: said MACAA has been a good neighbor to the community for years and he supports their mission and purpose. However, he said, he still has concerns that Park Street cannot handle the additional traffic that will be generated. It is really beyond argument that Park Street for many hours of the day is gridlocked. He also said older drivers seeking to exit the site may not be able to navigate the conditions. This is fundamentally a transfer from residential use to commercial use, and that should have a very high bar to clear. Harriet Kaplan: After spending over 2 years trying to figure out how to save MACAA and to help it flourish, we are now extremely excited about all of the synergies inherent in the project that was just described to you. Think of it! A new, modern child-development center for our area’s most vulnerable preschoolers; A much-needed senior living community that will preserve most of the site’s natural beauty; An opportunity for seniors and children to enrich each other’s lives; and 85 permanent jobs that could represent a new beginning for some of MACAA’s constituents, many of whom are unemployed or under-employed. This scenario is a far cry from what we have now: A building that has outlived its useful life and that is both too expensive to rehab and too costly to run. The bottom line is that the status quo is not an option for MACAA. Please, I urge you to grant the PUD tonight so that MACAA can go boldly into the future, continuing all of the important work that we have done in the past. And to make possible all of the important work that we plan to do in the future. Dawn Kidd: former board member and came to support this project. We did and have put a lot of thought to this project a process we have gone over the last couple of years. She said this will work for the community and for MACAA. Her child attended the head start program and she participated as a parent and it has helped her to grow as a parent and as a professional. This community needs the jobs which will be a positive and the intergenerational aspect will be a positive for the kids that attend the head-start program. Barbara Smith: MACAA’s plan to bring an intergenerational campus to Charlottesville will provide increase cooperation, interaction, and exchange between people of different generations; and enable various age groups to share their talents and resources, and support each other in relationships that benefit both individuals and their community. The intergenerational community is not just one where multiple generations reside. It will bridge the generational gap by building on the positive resources that each generation has to offer each other and those around them. The elderly possess a wealth of knowledge that can be passed on to the younger generation. Many of us have said, I don’t know what happened to this younger generation – cause when I was young, my neighbor would correct, redirect, and guide me and set me back on the right path. Well, neighbor, it’s our responsibility to address the extraordinary needs of low-income children and families. We are to set a path for their success. To ensure those less fortunate than us to have an opportunity to better their lives. This is what MACAA has been doing for over 50 years. Providing services to help those most in need in our community to become self-sufficient. In 1964 an unconditional War on Poverty was raged. On August 12, 2017 a Attachment 6 different kind of war was raged in our community. And, it was out of our hands – out of our control. Well, there’s still a war to defeat. And that is to ensure the disadvantaged children, families and seniors are well cared for and mentally stimulated by interactions with other people which will help to sustain their lives. MACAA’s longevity is a testament to our overall effectiveness. MACAA has and continues to serve as a beacon of hope for many and an inspiration to the entire community. Our current facility is falling down around us. We need not look poor to help the poor. This new campus is critical to MACAA’s financial vitality and existence. And, that neighbor is in our hands and in or control. Help us in this important work of building a solid foundation for generations to come. The solidary plays in building a stronger and supportive community where all lives do matter. Elise Cruz: I am the Senior Program Director at MACAA. I am a trained urban planner but took this position to see my city from a different perspective-from the eyes of the area’s poorest, most disadvantaged, most overlooked and forgotten people. I know that many of you have expressed your support for MACAA and the programs we offer to the community and we are grateful for your partnership and trust. Tonight, I’d like to go back to my academic roots and explore this decision using a term I have a love-hate relationship with: “Highest and Best Use.” This particular site is a bit of a weird one. It’s bordered by a highway and a major bypass, neighbors a large city park and an older neighborhoods, has a complex cultural and natural history, is one of the largest privately-owned and mostly-undeveloped parcels of land in the City, and has this unsightly, crumbling office building sitting right in the middle. From my perspective, there are few possibilities for the future of this site: MACAA continues to occupy the property for several more years. We continue to sacrifice the strength of our programs while we struggle to keep the building in working order. The structure continues to deteriorate and be an eye-sore. Some millionaire offers to buy the property, knock down the building, and build one giant mansion on the hill. Another developer approaches MACAA to build something by-right, such as squeezing 25 single family homes onto the site. This place an additional burden on the city’s schools and emergency services while allowing no affordable housing and creating a large amount of traffic during rush hour times. The City decides to take advantage of this opportunity to address needs of the City’s children, elderly, and low-income residents in one project. This campus will not only help MACAA better address the causes and conditions of poverty in the region, but it will actually provide on-site affordable housing, something no other developer has offered in recent years. Its scale and design are thoughtfully integrated into the neighborhood and geography of the site. Its promise of steady, good-paying jobs and opportunity to build a program connecting low-income adults to careers is hard to overlook. And its ability to keep aging resident’s part of the community they love is incredibly important. When determining the “highest and best use” of a property and evaluating any proposal, we as professionals are asked to consider 4 things: 1. Is it physically possible 2. Is it legally permissible? Attachment 6 3. Is it financially feasible? 4. Is it maximally productive? I would also add to this list: “Does it make our community more wonderful?” In this case, I believe that - with the necessary approvals from the City-we will be able to answer “Yes!” to all of these questions for the MACAA Intergenerational Campus project. Nancy Kidd: I have been director of the MACAA Hope House Family Stabilization program since 2012 and worked for another program serving underprivileged families prior to that. Over the years I have worked with people who find it difficult to financially survive in the City of Charlottesville. It is typical for them to share three major challenges: employment, transportation, and daycare. The MACAA Intergenerational Campus would provide opportunities for not only MACAA/Hope House families but others in the community. The project would create 85 permanent jobs that may be accessed through job training presently being offered to Hope House families. The jobs would be easily accessible on the CAT bus line. The added benefit of having Head Start on site would resolve daycare challenges for many. I am requesting that you approve the MACAA Intergenerational Campus application. John Fink: he is the executive treasurer of MACAA and a former planning commissioner chairman. These proffers are well in excess of a million dollars. This is an extremely robust set of proffers and fully underscores the commitment by the developer to affordable housing in our city. Hand in hand with these proffers is the opportunity for the constituents of MACAA with training to get good jobs, Our mission statement is this From Poverty To Self-Reliance Through Education, we are making a difference, so please help us to continue to make that difference. He said our organization has severe financial challenges, their demands for services has increase and the future of our operation is in serious doubt. MACAA has proudly served this community for over a half of a century. He gave his opinions of the duties of a planning commissioner and the guidelines to consider. The city is in dire need of clear and abiding leadership. Please demonstrate your collective vision in leadership and your unwavering support of MACAA with your unanimous approval to this application. Donna Bonsignore, 604 Davis Avenue: she continues to oppose this project and object to the permanent loss of the two R1 zoned properties on either side that is known as MACAA Drive. In the current iteration of a PUD a double set of duplexes would occupy the south corner lot. With these duplexes all previous pretense preserving the visible of our R1 low density neighborhood has disappeared. These duplexes were only included in an anemic response to neighbors like me and others in this room tonight who objected to the unaffordability of the senior living facility as proposed, But four units for seniors at 80% AMI plus 75,000 dollars to the city for affordable housing falls far short to what she would expect from a deal brokered by an anti-poverty organization such as MACAA. The senior living project on the table with all of the bells and whistles is readily available at the same rates in our Attachment 6 region. To better justify this re-zoning a facility offering subsidized senior housing featuring intergenerational opportunities would be more in keeping with MACAAs mission and it would show real progress for affordable senior housing in Charlottesville. Constance Johnson 631 Davis Avenue, no one is against MACAA, we love MACAA it has been a business in our neighborhood and a great neighbor. What bothers her is these people are putting a business in their neighbor. We are R1 and single family homes there are no other businesses in our neighborhood. The current MACAA educational facilities are set back and are out of sight from our neighborhood. What they are proposing to do is tear down a single family home at the corner of MACAA Drive and Park Avenue and replace with the two duplexes, the bone they have thrown out for affordable housing. They propose to move the business office up to that beautiful stone house other corner which would basically be a business office. Of course that eliminates the single family housing also. If this is approved a precedent will be set in our neighborhood and we will start to see other proposals for getting zoning changes and changing the character of our neighborhood. She is concerned with the numbers they are showing you for jobs and taxes; she doesn’t understand how they are getting those numbers and she hopes you will look at those carefully. She wonder about the people on the lower end of the job scale; what kind of pay they are getting or good benefits. There are no low income people who will be living in that senior housing facility and she thinks that is a shame. Nancy Carpenter: nobody is disputed the bridge building that Mr. Drewary Brown over 50 years ago is not a benefit and not something that is brilliant here in this community. What we have to look at as a Planning Commission is what’s being dimensioned and what is being advanced. A coupled of the others have mention about affordable housing looking at those slides and you are talking about revenue and income that are coming to the city and what kind of jobs and revenue that’s coming to the city and you want to offer $75,000; that is an insult to the affordable housing fund. The City Council has already appropriated $900,000 for a voucher program for a number of families here in the city. She said this RUI company could probably do a lot better than $75,000 as a proffer to get something in this community that some community members are concerned about. She said affordable housing for senior, 80% AMI. She said she work every day with people who get $735 a month SSI/SSDI. She said in her generation a lot of people didn’t work outside of the home, a very small public benefit that comes to them every month. You should be looking at 50% AMI or less because the other problem is there is the business model for this assistance living home doesn’t accept Medicaid bids, which means the poorest of the poor, the sickest of the elderly won’t have the benefit of being able to utilize this facility. What will the people who will work here do for transportation because most do not own cars. What kind of proffer will they offer to bring in CAT to actually come into the facility because where the current route is now how you have to walk up the sidewalk and across the street is not the most-safest way to get over to the existing property. Bill Gray: is an 81 years old man who reads to kids in the public school 17 years. He said the experience and the interaction between seniors and the young is wonderful. Seniors and youth on one campus is nothing short of a miracle. He loves it when he walks upon a student he once read to and they Attachment 6 remember his name Mr. Gray or they say, I remember the book you read me in 4th grade. These kids are respectful and they appreciate the senior because they have two working parents at home. Cecelia Mills: said we are relying on the commission and the City Council to take steps to help our community stay a community and said the proposal did not provide enough affordable housing and would not pay high-enough wages. Paula Kettlewell: Wilder Drive, 83 years old. She can age in place because it is a neighborhood. My neighbors look after me, they know where I am supposed to be at a certain time. It ranges from three in their eighties and people with pre-school kids. It is truly a neighborhood. She 100% support the kinds of things that MACAA is trying to do. She is not sure this is the place to do it. So many of the jobs in this establishment, the people who work there can’t afford to live in this Charlottesville. The traffic which has been building up since she move there. To get from Park Street to the 250 bypass going west require nerves of steel and rapid reflexes which very few people over sixty tend to have so she is very concerned about increasing the number of us who make that split 70 second decision to cross into 250 when people are trying to get out onto the John Warner Parkway. Every time she does it she’s holding her breath. Because of the traffic people will continue to drive through neighborhoods to avoid the hold ups that are increasing on Park Avenue. When she read about bringing 700 construction jobs, she said what kind of traffic is that going to bring. Thank you for considering it and she believes you will make a wise decision. Isaac Edwards: he is speaking on behalf of MACAA, born and raised here in Charlottesville and MACAA has truly turned out to be a great asset. He is a led teacher there 3-5 years old to prepare them for kindergarten. The best thing he has experienced is how MACAA involves the family so much, the community is made up of thousands of family. It takes a village to raise these kids and to set an example. This will be a great asset because the building we are currently in is not in the best shape, and is going down-hill, so this building is beneficial to the community and children so he hopes you find it in your heart to go ahead and approve this project. Virginia Amos: 628 Watson Ave, 92 year old who is a lifetime resident of Charlottesville who lives on Jefferson Street, walking to McGuffey and Lane High School. Jefferson Street was her family residence during her years of nursing school. This period of time dates back into the 1920’s. In 1958 we build our home on Watson Avenue which was an R-1 neighborhood. She asked you to imagine Ridge Street with stately residence, bankers, lawyers and merchants. Imagine Market Street with lovely homes among them a home of a judge. Imagine High Street all the way from Becks Hill to the Rivanna Bridge with lovely residences. She remembers High Street the residence of at least 5 physicians Some of these homes have been demolished and replaced with office buildings. All of that area was designated as R-1 in her childhood. Zoning changes have been allowed on these streets and are no longer desirable places to build a home. Currently the Locust Avenue and Park Street are zoned R1 and meant for family residences. Gradually exceptions have been allowed to those in offices and other changes. This is the last remaining lovely area for residences. To allow two duplexes across the street from one who built their home is an affront to the homeowner who built in R1. To allow these changes in A1 designation and allow the exception of a senior living in a community with a 4 story building and all of the added Attachment 6 traffic is an affront to those who built their homes with confident that this was a designation R1. Currently, it is difficult to turn from Watson Avenue in heavy traffic on Park Street. We have to depend on courtesy of drivers to motion to wait and allow us to turn to have excess to Park Street. In increase would be disastrous. Traffic on Park Street will increase until it will be a congested and bumper to bumper as it is currently from Evergreen Avenue to the Bridge on the bypass. I employ you to deny the change of designation from R1 to any other and protect the current residents. Kathleen Fee : it is very confusing for her to tie the project of the intergenerational millennium together with her support for head start. It makes her feel guilty if she has one thought about this behemus building going up in her backyard. It is 75 feet from her backyard. She has strong feeling about the directions that this village is taking. In 1965 her first job was working for head start and the federal programs to establish voting rights for African Americans; both of these organizations was in Mississippi She gets a clear sense that we are going backwards and we are putting much more into money. There is nothing lively or innovative about this project. She asked how big is each unit and how many people will fit in them. She sent a letter to Heather Newmyer. She can’t believe that this is the only way to save head start in a town like this. Jody London: She is a recipient to what Head Start offers. She is a single mother of a 4 and 2 year old. Her 4 year old is in a classroom that is somewhat dilapidated It is hard for her to sit and listen to residents say they want to supp0ort MACAA but they are not in favor of their community being distorted by a multi-story building. To her that is hypocrisy, To not approve this program is to keep women as herself, single mother, women of color and women trying to better themselves in the situation that we are currently in. Had it not been for MACAA during her time of unemployment she doesn’t know what she would have done with her daughter and where she would have been going to school. She has exceled extraordinarily, she is a social butterfly, diverse in her letters, inquisitive, thrives and made lasting friendships not only with the children in her class but with the teachers and the staff of head start so she employ you to please consider this project and give it your approval. Martha Smith, Marshall Street: She thinks this project is the right thing for Charlottesville at this time. She seconds every complaint everybody has issued about traffic. It is ridiculous and very difficult to deal with. It is already a business, an educational business resides in the property so to say oh suddenly it’s a business is casting a little bit of a shadow on what’s already there. Running a residential facility is a business, but its purpose is residential. She has been involved in Habitat, and seen a number of duplexes that don’t look like duplexes They are very attractively styled; simple but nicely detailed and one of the entrances is on the side. She was looking at this affordable housing contribution and was a gasped - 500 per residential unit that is proposed, that is miserly. That amount should be more in the range of 3,000 a unit. Somebody is going to be making money off of these units and it would seem like a fairer contribution to the affordable housing fund would be a heftier number. 500,000 would only get us a tad over $7,000 and these funds are a way to help the affordable housing issues at least in part to get us moving forward and hope we are able to find a solution to that. Bonner, Real Estate: There are 10 houses that surround the MACAA property, one house is Dr. Free house and the other house is the big beautiful historic house, and the other houses are all rental houses, Attachment 6 maybe one owner occupied. This block is a rental residential neighborhood, It’s R1 but a bunch of duplexes in a way. Rory Stolzenberg: He spoke on the renters of Charlottesville, every time you disapprove a project like this where is doesn’t sound like the alternative is a bunch of affordable housing being built or 140 units of cheap housing or rather no housing being built. There is a consequent in the rest of the town and that’s a 140 young couples moving into the units being vacated by these elderly people moving into this new complex which means less people moving out of the rental houses to buy their first house which means rent is going to go up. Homeowner usually gain when something like this happens especially the ones nearby and he doesn’t mean to suggest that anyone here is nothing but well-intentioned but there is a transfer of wealth in place and that money comes from mostly the renters of Charlottesville, and in part a complete financial loss. He lives two doors down from the Clock Shop but he doesn’t have any invested interest in any of these projects today and he never heard of MACAA until a couple of months ago. The only way to create affordable housing in this town for everyone is to build more units. Valerie Long: In favor with this project tonight, and it strikes a nice balance between all of the issues that have been raised by the commission and staff over the last few months. As a working mother with two children, she can attest to the significant incredible challenges to finding affordable child care in our community. It is incredibly challenging and incredibly expensive. There are so many studies out there that document and demonstrate the significant financial benefits when a community receives when they invest in high quality child care. MACAA is already there but this will enable them to among other things to continue to buy that high level of care but in new facility that are designed to modern standards and needs that meet our current quality standards and she thinks that has not been discussed enough. All would agree that there is an increasing demand for quality senior living facilities in our community particularly those that are well located closely to other facilities. She has worked on several assistance living facilities in her practice, ( she is not in any way involved in this one) she has learned a lot about how challenging it is for families with elderly family members to find quality care, and much like the other speaker mentioned the best way to provide more affordable housing is to build more units similarly the best way to provide for competition and quality care and affordable care insure is to insure we have sufficient supply or at least more supply so that we are not creating a situation where prices are driven up due to lack of supply. She said this location near a neighborhood is actually a benefit, it allows the elderly or families who have elderly family members to live near their family members who might want to live in this building. They can be in the senior apartment buildings when that is the level of care they need and when they get to the point when they need to transition to the assistance level facility they can transition essentially in place which makes it a lot easier on everyone. To have their family member nearby would be a great benefit. Attachment 6 From: Judy Harmon To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: Development at 1025 Park Street Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 3:21:16 PM Dear Ms. Neumeyer, I am a resident of the North Downtown neighborhood of Charlottesville. In my neighborhood and adjacent ones there is near constant construction and redevelopment of private single family homes, multi-unit residential buildings (630 Park St, West 2nd St, 550 E. Water St.), supportive housing (proposed at 517 Park St), and the proposed large scale project at 1025 Park St where MACAA is currently located. Most of these projects that I mention are about improving properties, increasing the capacity of a building, or demolishing and building new, upscale housing; few take into consideration serving the current population of Charlottesville and its needs for affordable housing. I am afraid the MACAA project falls into this category as well. How does it serve a need that is unmet in Charlottesville? A quick internet search shows at least 44 different housing communities (that's multi-unit buildings multiplied by 44) for seniors in Charlottesville and Albemarle. Is this really insufficient? How does the New Millennium-proposed building improve Charlottesville or meet a need? Beyond just making good use of our land, there are also logistical factors to consider such as how much traffic a single lane street like Park Street can handle. What have the traffic engineers said about adding 150+ residents, as well as visitors and staff to the property daily? I live immediately off of Park Street. Since the renovation of the Bypass and JW Parkway was completed, traffic has significantly increased. Congestion and limited visibility make it difficult and dangerous to turn left on Park Street during busy times of day. I think the neighborhoods immediately around 1025 Park Street will experience similar difficulties getting to and from their homes if the proposed project is approved. Park Street was just not designed to handle as much traffic as it currently has, and certainly isn't prepared for such a potentially large increase if the current plans go forward. Before the Planning Commission approves NMSLC's plan, please carefully consider what Charlottesville needs and how we as a community can meet that need. Let's not just sell out our neighborhoods and our neighbors to a profit making institution with no ties to our community. Thank you for your consideration, Judy and William Harmon 609 Lyons Avenue From: Donna Bonsignore To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: MACAA PUD Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 12:47:37 PM I'd like to go on record with my objection to the proposed permanent loss of two R-1 zoned properties fronting Park St. on either side of what is known as MACAA Drive. In the current iteration of the PUD proposal, with the planned double set of duplexes on the south corner, all pretense of respecting the current zoning and character of the street is lost. It strikes me as unnecessary collateral damage since the remaining property in the PUD could be well utilized and perhaps rezoned in ways other than as currently proposed. Donna Bonsignore 604 Davis Ave. Input  on  MACAA  development   John  Hossack,  617  Davis  Ave   9/29/17     MACAA  have  been  good  neighbors.  Our  neighborhood  values  their  contribution  and  in  particular  their   mission  and  passionate  leadership.  I  sincerely  hope  MACAA  can  thrive  and  stay  on  this  site  in  our   neighborhood.     I  appreciate  and  value  the  time  staff  from  MACAA,  New  Millenium  and  City  Staff  took  to  attend  meeting(s)   explaining  the  plan.     In  principle,  the  intergenerational  development  has  merit.  There  are  some  significant  questions  about   scale  and  detail.     Concerns:   The  traffic  engineering  analysis  appear  to  have  used  the  11,000  cars  per  day.  The  City  did  a  traffic  and   speed  count  on  Park  St  in  July  –  i.e.  during  the  quietest  part  of  the  year.  I  understand  a  new  count  is   planned.  It  would  be  useful  to  have  a  valid  count  for  Park  St.     Park  St  is  an  overused  and  abused  residential  street.  In  all  likelihood,  it  is  little  more  than  a  widened  and   paved  over  early  19thC  country  track.  The  alignment  north  of  US250  is  consistent  with  this  observation   (steep,  narrow,  windy,  blind  summits).  However,  today  it  is  the  de  facto  arterial  linking  County  growth   areas  north  and  east  of  town.  It  carries  more  traffic  than  the  Warner  Parkway.  The  City  has  had  good   opportunities  to  address  this  problem  –  e.g.  by  prioritizing  a  grade  separated  intersection  (GSI)  at   Hydraulic  over  one  at  Rio.  A  GSI  at  Hydraulic  would  encourage  through  traffic  to  avoid  our  neighborhood.   A  Rio  GSI  encourages  use  of  our  neighborhood  for  through  traffic.  Why  is  this  relevant?  Some  of  the   Park  St’s  prpblems  are  attributable  to  unwise  City  decision  making  in  the  past.  Now,  we  are  supposed  to   support  a  project  that  potentially  worsens  the  situation?  Are  we  to  believe  the  optimistic  assessments  of   future  traffic,  speed  and  safety  or  should  we  follow  our  intuition  based  on  decades  of  local  experience?   Unfortunately,  Park  St  is  a  mess  that  risks  destabilizing  a  neighborhood.  I  would  be  so  much  more   enthusiastic  about  this  project  if  I  really  felt  the  problems  of  Park  St  gained  the  attention  they  ought  to   attract.       I  previously  expressed  concerns  about  the  underestimate  in  traffic  growth  (i.e.  near  static  –  it  isn’t).  That   concern  remains.     I  previously  expressed  concerns  about  sight  line  deficiencies  exiting  MACAA.  These  are  only  partially   solved.  Local  residents  know  that  a  20  mph  advisory  isn’t  likely  to  work  on  this  road.  It  is  predictable  that   older  drivers  will  have  exceptional  difficulties  exiting  MACAA  given  these  problems  –  especially  at  times   of  low  light.  While  there  have  been  few  accidents  at  this  junction,  near  accidents  occur  daily.     Our  neighborhood  is  deeply  concerned  that  the  parking  allowance  is  inadequate  and  that  our  street   (Davis)  will  be  development  /  school  overflow  parking.  We  will  not  tolerate  this.     I  appreciate  some  adjustments  made  to  the  plan  with  respect  to  keeping  the  pedestrian  crosswalk  on  the   south  side  of  the  junction  and  taking  measures  to  avoid  inappropriate  exiting  from  MACAA  on  to  Davis  or   Park  St  north.     The  scope  of  the  development  was  reduced  from  about  150  units  to  about  140  units.  This  still  seems  way   too  many  given  the  deficiencies  with  the  site  and  its  access.     Summary:  Based  on  the  above,  I  consider  the  plan  to  be  too  large  scale  and  that  traffic  and  road  access   questions  remain.  I  cannot  support  the  project  as  planned.   From: Donna Bonsignore To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: MAACA Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:57:41 PM Dear Ms. Newmyer, Thank you for meeting with me last week (6/27/17). You suggested that I write down some of my concerns with the MAAC zoning application. I want to say, first, that I respect and support the programs that MAAC has provided to the community over the years. I also recognize the need for senior/disabled care and appreciate the inter-generational nature of the proposal. My concerns focus primarily upon the impact of a greatly increased level of activity in an area that is currently zoned R1, a level of increased activity that I believe exceeds the spirit of the variances allowed in an R1 neighborhood. Right now MAACA has a very limited standard schedule that runs roughly 8-6, Monday -Friday. It provides parking for all its usual needs, spilling onto the neighboring streets only occasionally. The traffic impact is further limited because the exit onto Park St. (offset from Davis Ave.) is marked "Right Turn Only". In the 24 years we have resided at 604 Davis Ave., we have only had one problem with getting hit by another car exiting MAACA, and it was someone illegally turning left! I am glad that the proposed site plans include an attempt to better align the intersection, but it still looks a little off kilter as planned. A four way intersection with very limited line of sight to the north on Park will be very different with an increase in traffic. Over the past 10 years, I used facilities in Albemarle County that remarkably cover the same needs as the 151 unit independent living, assisted living and memory care proposed for the current MAACA site. I first moved an elderly relative into Branchlands where they offered independent living, and then moved her across the road to Rosewood Village for assisted living and ultimately memory care, with two stays nearby at the Laurels for nursing care. That said , I have been observing the needs of such businesses for a while . I know that staffing has to be maintained 24/7 with hopefully high ratios to residents. I know that 151 units translates to 151+ residents since many units are doubles. I know that while the majority of residents may not maintain vehicles, some will, and everyone else will need to be transported to and from the facility somehow, sometimes. Doctor's appointments, social outings, and shopping trips all keep happening for the residents at these facilities. Family , friend, and volunteer visits will impact traffic as well. I know that the one dumpster that MAACA currently maintains, and that I can hear from my home when it gets emptied, will need to be increased in size/number and emptied much more regularly. Let's not forget noisy, beeping, diesel powered food delivery trucks too. Ambulances will be dispatched to such a facility night and day, seven days a week as well. I got the impression from our quick chat that you have been given to believe that some of the needs they are suggesting must be met are medical in nature. I would be very surprised to find much in house medical activity associated with the level of care they are proposing. In my experience, these facilities offer little more medical services than nurse administered/distributed drugs, physical therapy, and CNA administered care. If they are actually playing up that angle it just isn't likely to be much of an issue. Generally, services like imaging and hospice care are brought into the facility from outside and occur in the resident's personal space, and medical appointments continue in the greater community--even at the Laurels where they offer skilled nursing care. I am anxious to have some of these concerns addressed at the community meeting on July 17. In the meantime, I am sharing them with you formally. Sincerely, Donna Bonsignore 604 Davis Ave. 434-977-5401 From: Lane Bonner To: Council; Planning Commission; Newmyer, Heather Subject: FW: Letter of Support for MACAA Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 9:12:22 AM Dear Heather, I am a real estate broker/developer/consultant. I have helped MACAA through this process without collecting any fees. ( If I had charge, my fees would have been over $100,000 – I am a believer in MACAA) For 18 years, I have watched many real estate experts try to figure out the MACAA property. Jim McVay, Chris Kabbash, Coran Capshaw, Rip Cathcart, Developers from Richmond are just a few that have tried. I have seen office plans, by right luxury homes, by right mix of middle class and affordable homes, and townhouses plans. All of these plans did not work because they caused too much traffic. All of these plans did not work because the plans left no room for MACAA and no synergy with MACAA. There is no good place that MACAA can move and still own real estate. They have to be in the City on a bus line to serve their constituents. Real estate is either too expensive, neighbors do not work, wrong location, etc. Owning real estate is a part of their culture and also insures that MACAA can be around for a long time. The Senior Living facility actually wants MACAA to stay because there is synergy between the groups. The City has no services or places to stay to help this particular demographic of the aging. Right now, If you want to age in an assisted living facility in Charlottesville, it's difficult as there are almost no choices. Finally, and most importantly for the neighborhood, as far as I can tell, is that the project does not have significant impact on traffic. Furthermore, the timing is good since the John Warner Parkway is now stabilized and has taken traffic off of Rio Rd. Charlottesville is landlocked . Well planned density is good for the health of Charlottesville and it is good to lessen urban sprawl. I think the democratic council that appointed you would agree. Best of all, this type of density only adds to the tax income and does not add burden to the City - i.e. school systems, traffic, etc. I believe the Senior Living Facility for the MACAA property is the culmination of 18 years of planning. Senior Living and MACAA headquarters are truly the best and highest use of this property and the City if Charlottesville . If this does not work, nothing will. Unfortunately, if this does not work, MACAA will not be around to serve its constituents. These are the forgotten people that no one wants to talk about. Lane Bonner 434-989-2779 Lanelbonner@gmail.com Hasbrouck Real Estate PO Box 5384 Charlottesville, Va 22905 From: Jackie Erskine To: Newmyer, Heather Cc: Cecilia Mills Subject: MACCA plan Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 12:50:07 PM I am just getting informed, with everything else going on in the city! I live within 4blocks of MACCA property, and have extensive personal experience with aging in place, home health care, assisted living for my husband, and how incredibly expensive Cville is, especially on fixed retirement incomes. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS... This town and immediate surroundings have MANY housing opportunities for high income seniors, whether in independent living or when more care needed. It is hard to make a case that we need more. What is needed is building more affordable housing for seniors, which would contribute to a more diverse and enriched living situation for all. It would be so disheartening to put up more housing for rich people. Jackie Erskine 434-296-3143 From: Monica Davis To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: MACCA Proposal Date: Friday, September 29, 2017 10:43:57 AM Dear Heather, I live in the neighborhood--604 Watson Ave. I'm writing in support of the MACCA-senior living project. My family feel this is a clever, well-thought out solution to a deteriorating situation. I attended the information session in July and have read the changes that are proposed. We believe the project will be an asset to the neighborhood-- providing jobs and housing. We are also grateful that the issues of Park Street are being addressed.   Thank you for your hard work! Sincerely, Monica and Joe Davis ps I think that our neighbors on Park Street would be interested in a sidewalk (spoke with several in the past month) Constance Johnson 631 Davis Ave Charlottesville, VA 22901 September 22, 2017 Ms. Heather Newmyer AICP City Planner City of Charlottesville Virginia newmyerh@charlottesville.org Project Name: Monticello Area community Agency (MACAA) Intergenerational Campus – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Dear Ms. Newmyer, This is a follow-up letter to the proposed changes and revised application for the PUD rezoning application to the MACAA property. I still cannot support the project even with the requested changes. 1. The properties in the two blocks adjoining the MACAA site are all zoned R1 or R1H 2. There are no businesses in our neighborhood. A nursing home is business. 3. There are no duplexes or town homes, only single family homes. The revised application proposes a four story nursing home on the site which is still 20 feet taller than any other property in the neighborhood and will be seen from every vantage point with lighting. The revised application proposes two duplexes facing Park Street and a $75,000 contribution to the CAHF as the affordable housing element. There are no town homes in this section of our neighborhood and the CAHF contribution is pitiful. The nursing home proper I guess will still not accept Medicare patients. The traffic issues on Park Street and adjacent streets need to be addressed regardless of proposed changes to the MACCA site. In light of any increased access this becomes even more important. Minimally, a new traffic study needs to be done to give accurate traffic count, evaluate congestion issues at the stop lights and speed on Park St. and adjacent/cut through streets. The safety of the residents, bicyclists, walkers/hikers and children attending schools in this area should be a priority. I hope that the planning commission and city council will not approve the PUD. There must be other options. I personally would like the city to buy at least all of the original MACCA property. - Put it into the city park system, thus replacing the erosion of McIntyre Park over the years or - Put some back into the park system and divide the rest into smaller lots for R1 zoned housing to include affordable housing. Thank you for your continued work on this project and for including in your report. From: Philip Schrodt To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: REVISED Comment on MACAA Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezoning Request Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 9:58:17 AM [My earlier letter incorrectly attributed the mocking of "aging in place" to the representative of New Millennium; in fact it was -- ever so helpfully -- someone associated with MACAA. Please replace the earlier letter with the one below: thanks.] ------------------------------- As a homeowner living about 600 yards from the proposed development, as well as commuting on foot or motor-scooter on Park St. past the property a daily basis, I am writing in opposition to the proposed PUD on the grounds that it is incompatible with the residential character of the neighborhood, likely to decrease the property values of those who have chosen to "age in place", and will likely result in a permanent very large commercial enterprise in the area. The neighborhood surrounding the proposed PUD is stable, mature, multi-ethnic and multi-generational, and contains some of the most varied housing stock, in size and price, within easy pedestrian access to the downtown (During the colder months, I walk every business day to my office near High and Park, and I'm on Medicare: downtown is pedestrian accessible from this neighborhood). The PUD proposes to drop into this area a massive 4-story structure with 141 units housing some 200 ever- changing temporary residents and some unknown number of support staff, surrounding this with outdoor parking brightly illuminated around the clock, and with a constant flow of resident, visitor, staff, commercial, and emergency vehicles. The construction process alone has been projected to last for two years, and as numerous people have pointed out, the analysis of the effects of this development on the already problematic traffic patterns on Park St. used flawed data which have never been adequately explained. The proposal emphasizes the importance of encouraging an "inter-generational" environment but this neighborhood is *already* strongly inter-generational, but has done this through individual investments and initiatives. It is an excellent example of the "aging in place" which is actively promoted by both the city and the Commonwealth: Three of my nearest neighbors are in their 80s, "aging in place", and haven't the slightest interest in moving into the type of facility proposed in the PUD. Not, of course, that they could afford it: New Millennium is proposing a high-end facility totally out of the financial reach of almost everyone currently living in the area, and New Millennium wishes to do this by diminishing the property values and quality-of-life of the existing real estate, making it even less likely anyone local could afford to reside in the facility. People in the neighborhood have invested in their homes on the assumption that it would remain residential and attractive, not suddenly hosting a massive commercial development completely out of character with the existing area. This Saturday (September 30), Charlottesville is hosting an all-day event on the future of driverless vehicles in our city. Charlottesville has made it clear that it plans to be on the leading edge of these developments (and one of the major technological innovators is now located in Crozet), and it has been estimated that automated vehicles for personal transportation and deliveries are likely to double the amount of time people who are aging can remain in their homes, and possibly reduce the demand for 1970's-style residential retirement developments such as that proposed in the PUD by as much as two-thirds. The New Millennium project may be viable in the short term, but with these predictable changes in technology I very much doubt it will be so for very long. And then? Abandon the building to become a second Landmark Hotel? Unlikely. Instead, sooner rather than later -- in fact based on recent experiences with changing plans in other PUDs in Charlottesville, maybe before the ink is even dry on the approval of the rezoning -- the facility will be closed and reopened as either a hotel or office building. All of the promises of an "inter-generational campus" will be out the window in the name of New Millennium's fiduciary duty to its out-of-town owners, traffic issues on Park Street will further deteriorate due to the constant movement of vehicles at the opening and close of business hours, but yes, we'll still have those 24/7 garishly lit parking areas blighting our nighttime skies. The alternative is simply to allow development under the existing R1 zoning, which will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. MACAA has every right under that zoning to sell the property, and my understanding is that there are numerous local developers who have been dissuaded by the political power of New Millennium's owners from making proposals, but will happily do so once this PUD issue has been resolved. MACAA still gets a very large sum of money and the city gets increased tax revenues but the residential character, and the property values, of the neighborhood remain intact, and the area is occupied by families with a long-term interest in the community. Zoning is meant to protect the existing investments of homeowners, not to provide windfall profits to powerful corporations: for a change, let's have the city authorities do something that will protect the ordinary citizens, not just benefit the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of those citizens. =================================== Philip A. Schrodt Parus Analytics LLC Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: +1-785-550-3553 Home page: philipschrodt.org Parus Analytics: parusanalytics.com Event Data Project: eventdata.parusanalytics.com Blog: asecondmouse.org =================================== From: Cecilia Mills To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: PUD for MACAA property Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:33:17 AM Planning Commission MACAA PUD request The proposed planned unit development by New Millennium Senior Living is a request for a custom rezoning to eliminate the potential of single family homes and replace it with what is essentially a zoning for business. Cities can grow organically and this development is not an organic addition to the inner core of Charlottesville. Zoning is used to protect the beauty and quality of a neighborhood. I appreciate the needs of MACAA, but must separate them from this project. The developer has listened to input from the neighbors, and they have offered to reduce the size of the development by 6.66% to 141 units and remove one story from the building that will still top the height of the tallest tree. The computer generated projected view minimizes the impact, but the reality of plopping down a 4-story retirement village into a residential neighborhood will begin the demise of this neighborhood. The Locust Grove Neighborhood may not officially be a gateway entrance to downtown, but in reality it IS! Smaller developments, like Martha Jefferson House blend into a neighborhood, while providing access to services, like a public library next door! If this building were two or three stories, it would be less intrusive. This plan is too generic (pages 27-29 shows units that are from a development in Texas called Westworth Village by Covenant Group). NMSLC did add in 4 units as "affordable housing", to be used as the Sales Office. With so many units to fill, what guarantee do we have that sales office won't be perpetually in existence? We need housing that is a truly innovative with a mix of types and prices, not one building with different types of units inside. This is a project that is designed to accommodate those who can afford to pay $3,000, $5000 and $15,000/month, while paying employees $13, $20 and $25/hour. This equation will lead to more income inequality for the workers. It seems ironic that a project that will generate so much property tax for the city, would create these wages. If they want this proposal to pass, they could make a proffer of higher paying jobs. I fully understand the reality of the aging population and the cost of "healthcare" for the aging and dying. I volunteer with hospice and work with elders on a regular basis. Residents are spending money on construction projects to adapt their own houses for aging in place. I have asked my neighborhood and friends in the North Downtown Neighborhood what they think of this development and many are unaware that it is under consideration. When told the cost of these facilities, they are unilaterally aghast at the prices and at the lack of availability for Medicaid exceptions. This facility will rely on bringing in an additional 200 people, which will increase the traffic by approximately 400 trips per day--TOO many for this small neighborhood. No thought has been given to bicyclists that use Park St. to commute, to ride to and from downtown or to and from the McIntire Plaza area. Traffic patterns are unpredictable, but school schedules are not. The increase in traffic and the "law of unintended consequence" will have drivers cutting over on North or Watson to access Locust Avenue for quicker access in and out of the area. The traffic is already increasing and the housing developments that are just north of the county line are causing rapid growth without the infrastructure. The Traffic Impact Analysis supplied has inaccuracies and was not modified to compare the correct "by right" number of houses to the proposed development. Many people do not work 9-5 anymore and adding traffic throughout the day will make congestion unavoidable. I understand that change is inevitable, but the Planning Commission and the City Council are in the role to decide what that change LOOKS like, and I ask that you deny the developer the permission to change the Locust Grove neighborhood in this way. This is not the right solution for Charlottesville. Roanoke rejected a very similar project for 180 units. Cecilia Mills 703 Wilder Dr. Charlottesville, VA CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Presenter: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: SP17-00002 – 901 River Road SUP Request Background: Applicant Request Robert High Development, LLC, contract purchaser, and landowner River Road Plaza, LLC, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for the property located at 901 River Road with road frontage on River Road and Belleview Avenue. The application seeks approval to establish a self-storage company, pursuant to City Code Section 34-480 which allows that use by SUP within the IC zoning district. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 49 Parcel 98 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned IC (Industrial Corridor District). The site is approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet. The proposed preliminary site plan (Attachment 3) indicates that the existing 1-story building will be demolished, and then a 3-story (building footprint: 34,450 square feet (SF)) self-storage building would be constructed on the site. The Land Use Plan generally calls for Business and Technology uses along this Corridor. Setback Request: As part of this special use permit request, the applicant is seeking to modify the primary street setback from 20’ maximum to 67.1’ maximum in an effort to preserve the existing 27’ White Oak that fronts on River Road. For more detailed information on this application, please see Attachment 3. 1 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157 (Attachment 2). If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. Relevant code sections are listed below to assist in Council’s determination. Relevant Code Sections • Zoning Ordinance Section 34-440(f) – Industrial Corridor The intent of the Industrial Corridor district is to provide areas for light industrial activity that is directed to assembly and technological businesses rather than heavy manufacturing. This district provides opportunities for large scale commercial uses and manufacturing or industrial type uses that are more compatible with the neighborhoods that surround the manufacturing properties. Regulations provide for buffering from incompatible uses, but encourage these important employment centers to locate within the district. • 2013 Comprehensive Plan The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Business and Technology. Business and Technology areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “permit small scale offices that cater to start-up businesses and technological development, as well as commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer oriented commercial areas.” • Streets That Work The Subject Property fronts on River Road which falls into the Industrial street typology and Belleview Avenue which is considered a non-framework, Local street. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies of the Streets That Work Plan include Industrial streets and the remaining street typologies with their associated design parameters. Local streets have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context, right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets. The Streets That Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. To access the full Streets That Work Plan, follow this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and- services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets- that-work-plan 2 Discussion: Overview of Staff Analysis Staff reviewed the special use permit request in light of the factors listed in Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 2), the Subject Property’s current zoning (Industrial Corridor), the Comprehensive Plan and the Streets That Work Plan. Overall, staff believes the proposed use is appropriate given the proposed use does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in consumer oriented commercial areas, it conforms to the surrounding uses, the current zoning, the proposed right-of-way improvements conform to the Streets That Work Guidelines, and, finally, the applicant is proposing to provide stormwater treatment on-site in light of the Subject Property’s proximity to the Rivanna River. Staff recommended that the application be approved with the following conditions: • The newly constructed sidewalk along River Road will provide for preferred ADA access 4 feet in width around existing utility poles The design and construction plan for the sidewalk, providing the required ADA access widths will be approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved ADA access widths and construction details in accordance with the Streets That Work Plan. • The sidewalk improvements along Belleview Avenue will be designed to allow on-street parking to be maintained on one side of Belleview Avenue. The design and construction plan for the sidewalk improvements will be approved by the City Engineer, and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved design and construction plan in accordance to the Streets That Work Plan. • The building will be no less than 40.5’ away from the existing 27” White Oak tree in order to protect the critical root zone and preserve the 27” White Oak tree on the Subject Property. Final site plan shall incorporate a tree preservation plan approved by the City Arborist. • The proposed infiltration system shall not be used or installed, unless and until the City Engineer verifies that an acceptable soil infiltration test and other site conditions (e.g. depth to mean water table) are appropriate for use of such system. If the infiltration system is not verified by the City Engineer as appropriate for this site, then an alternative LID measure shall be provided. The final site plan shall incorporate either the City- Engineer-verified infiltration system, or an alternate LID measure. For more detailed discussion on staff’s overall analysis on this application, please see Attachment 3. 3 Planning Commission The Planning Commission discussed the special use permit request at their October 24, 2017 special meeting. The topics of discussion that the Commission focused on were: • The use of a self-storage company did not create enough activity as some of the neighborhood residents have expressed they would want; whereas another use could generate more jobs, activity and serve the neighborhood better • The use of a self-storage company does not meet the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal of mixed use Alignment with City Council’s Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The proposed pedestrian improvements align with the City Council Vision of A Connected Community and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.3, “provide a variety of transportation and mobility options.” The inclusion of an on-site stormwater treatment BMP in light of the Subject Property’s close proximity to the Rivanna River contributes to the City Council Vision A Green City and Strategic Plan, Goal 3.5, “be responsible stewards of natural resources.” Community Engagement: Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on July 26, 2017 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are provided for in a list below. If the applicant addressed the neighborhood concern in any way in the application submission dated August 28, 2017, staff has noted how beside the neighborhood concern in bold. • Right-turn only exiting onto Belleview desired. The applicant originally proposed an entrance/exit off of Belleview Avenue, but has now removed this entrance/exit on Belleview Avenue as shown in the preliminary site plan associated with this request (Attachment 3). • Preserve Oak Tree fronting River Road and alter setback as part of SUP if necessary The applicant has proposed the self-storage building with a modified front setback as part of the SUP request (from 20’ to 67.1’ maximum) in order to preserve the 27” Oak Tree. • Include water quality treatment on-site in light of proximity to Rivanna River The applicant has proposed an infiltration system on-site. • Belleview – neighborhood residents prefer a vegetative strip (desire for visual amenities); a curbside buffer if there is room The applicant has increased its landscaping plan to include a curbside buffer along River Road and additional trees adjacent to the proposed building along Belleview Avenue. 4 • Neighborhood concern the company would auction on-site. Applicant has confirmed this company does not do on-site auctioning. • Parking screening required per code/neighborhood residents would like a mix of evergreens • Plant trees in back instead of fescue The applicant has added trees at the rear of the property which also complies with S-3 screen requirement. • Push building towards Belleview and relegate parking to back The applicant has moved the building to front on Belleview Avenue, pushing parking to the back of building. • Front of River Road provide spaces for leasing opportunities At the October 10, 2017 Public Hearing, as well as written correspondence from neighborhood residents, the public voiced the following general concerns: • Desire for a light industrial use that provides more tax revenue and more job creation than the proposed use • Desire for this property to redevelop as a more neighborhood oriented use (mixed use, commercial and more attention to the Subject Properties’ close proximity to the Rivanna River) Please see Attachment 4 for an excerpt of the October 10, 2017 meeting minutes for a detailed list of individual public comments made during the rezoning’s Public Hearing. In addition, Attachment 4 includes written correspondence from neighborhood residents. Budgetary Impact: A Self-storage Facility Project at 901 River Road, based on 100,000 square feet is expected to generate - $89,500 in annual city revenue. This includes applicable real property taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, meals taxes, BPOL and utility taxes. In addition, there would be an estimated one time increase of $12,000 in BPOL and permitting fees. A limited number of construction related jobs would be created during the construction period which is expected to last 9-12 months. The number of permanent jobs created by this project is unknown at this point and will depend on the specific business model of the operator. The undeveloped parcel involved in this project currently generates approximately $20,000 in city revenue annually. Recommendation: The Commission took the following action: Ms. Keller moved to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit to authorize a self-storage company at TM 49 P 98. 5 Ms. Dowell seconded the motion. The Commission voted 5-1 (Santoski) to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution (granting an SUP as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, request changes to the attached Resolution, and then approve an SUP in accordance with the amended Resolution; (3) by motion, defer action on the SUP, or (4) by motion, deny the requested SUP. Attachment: (1) Proposed Resolution Approving a Special Use Permit (2) Sec. 34-157 – General standards for issuance (3) Staff Report with Application Materials Attached, October 10, 2017 (4) Public Comments: (i) Meeting Date October 10, 2017 Minutes Excerpt: 901 River Road Public Hearing Comments and (ii) Public Written Correspondence received 6 SP17-00002 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A SELF-STORAGE COMPANY AT 901 RIVER ROAD WHEREAS, the owner of certain land (“Landowner”) located at 901 River Road, identified on City Tax Map 49 as Parcel 98 and containing approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet (“Subject Property”) has requested a special use permit, in order to establish a use referred to within the City’s Zoning Ordinance as a “self-storage company” on the Subject Property (the proposed “Special Use”). The Subject Property is within the City’s Industrial Corridor Mixed Use Zoning District (“IC”); and WHEREAS, the requested Special Use is described within the application materials submitted in connection with application number SP17-00002 (“Application Materials”) and the Special Use is allowed within the IC zoning district pursuant to City Code §34-480; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Application Materials, the City’s Staff Report dated October 10, 2017, and following a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on October 10, 2017, the Commission voted to recommend that City Council should deny the requested Special Use; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, and of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the requested Special Use subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code § 34-41, § 34-158 and § 34-480, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize a self-storage company to be established on the Subject Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Landowner shall construct a new sidewalk along River Road. The newly constructed sidewalk will provide clearance for ADA accessibility, four (4) feet in width, around existing utility poles. The design and construction plan for the sidewalk, providing the required ADA accessibility clearance, will be approved by the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator. The final site plan shall incorporate the approved ADA accessibility clearance and construction details in accordance with the City’s Streets That Work Plan. 2. The Landowner shall construct sidewalk improvements along Belleview Avenue. These sidewalk improvements will be designed and constructed to allow on-street parking to be maintained on one side of Belleview Avenue. The design and construction plan for the sidewalk improvements will be approved by the City Engineer, and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved design and construction plan in accordance with the Streets That Work Plan. SP17-00002 3. Any building constructed on the Subject Property shall be at least 40.5 feet away from the existing 27-inch White Oak tree (the “Tree”), and construction shall be conducted in a manner that will protect the critical root zone and preserve the Tree. The final site plan shall incorporate a tree preservation plan approved by the City Arborist for the Tree. 4. As part of the preliminary site plan submitted with the Application Materials, the Landowner has proposed a specific on-site stormwater infiltration system (“Infiltration System”). The Infiltration System shall not be installed or used, unless and until the City Engineer verifies that an acceptable soil infiltration test and other site conditions (e.g. depth to mean water table) are appropriate for proper use of such system. If the Infiltration System is not verified by the City Engineer as appropriate for this site, then an alternative low impact development (LID) measure shall be provided by the Landowner. The final site plan shall incorporate either the City-Engineer-verified Infiltration System, or an alternate LID measure. Attachment 2 Sec. 34-157. - General standards for issuance. (a) In considering an application for a special use permit, the city council shall consider the following factors: (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood; (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan; (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations; (4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: a. Traffic or parking congestion; b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available; f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; g. Impact on school population and facilities; h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts; i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant; and, j. Massing and scale of project. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. (9-15-03(3); 11-21-05; 2-21-06) Page 1 Attachment 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: October 10, 2017 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP-1700002 Project Planner: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: September 27, 2017 Applicant: Robert High Development, LLC Applicants Representative: Justin Shimp, P.E. of Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: River Road Plaza, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 901 River Road (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 49, Parcel 98 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: Industrial Corridor District (IC) Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on taxes paid. Completeness: The application contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), and 34-158(a) and (b). There are no existing dwelling units on the site, and there are no dwelling units proposed by this development. Graphic materials illustrating the context of the project are attached to this staff report (Attachment 4, 5). The pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was held on June 5, 2017. The community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on July 26, 2017, at the following location: Park Street Christian Church (1200 Park Street). Applicant’s Request Robert High Development, LLC, contract purchaser, and landowner River Road Plaza, LLC, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request for the property located at 901 River Road with road frontage on River Road and Belleview Avenue. The application seeks approval to establish a self-storage company, pursuant to City Code Section 34-480 which allows that use by SUP within the IC zoning district. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 49 Parcel 98 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned IC (Industrial Corridor District). The site is approximately 2.203 acres or 95,963 square feet. The proposed preliminary site plan (Attachment 3) indicates that the existing 1-story building will be demolished, and then a 3-story (34,450 square feet (SF)) self-storage building would be constructed on the site. The Land Use Plan generally calls for Business and Technology uses along this Corridor. Setback Request: As part of this special use permit request, the applicant is seeking to modify the primary street setback from 20’ maximum to 67.1’ maximum in an effort to preserve the existing 27’ White Oak that fronts on River Road. Vicinity Map 2 Context Map 1 Context Map 2 – Zoning Classifications 3 KEY - Gray: Industrial Corridor (IC) District; Orange: R-2 – Tow-Family, Low-Density Residential; Magenta: Central City Corridor Mixed Use District (CC); Light Blue Hash Mark: Entrance Corridor Overlay Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Maroon: Business & Technology; Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Red: Neighborhood Commercial Application Components: Project proposal narrative (Sec. 34-41(d)(1)): Attachment 2 Building massing diagram and elevations (Sec. 34-157(a)(4)): Attachment 4 Project site plan (Sec. 34-157(a)(1): Attachment 3 Applicant’s Comprehensive Plan Analysis: Attachment 2 Applicant’s public facilities impact statement: Attachment 2 Applicant’s LID Worksheet (Sec. 34-157(a)(3)): Attachment 1 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. 4 Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the Applicant. Sec. 34-157(a)(1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Auto Repair/Servicing Business IC South Other Retail Stores CC East Hardware Store IC West Single-Family Dwellings R-2 The pattern of development along River Road in closest proximity to the Subject Property is characterized by automobile uses (Larry’s Auto & Truck Repair, 1313 Belleview Avenue; Autozone, 910 River Road), hardware stores, a pharmacy (CVS, 1341 Long St), and agriculture supply store (Tractor Supply, 921 River Road). The properties along River Road that are surrounding the Subject Property are zoned Industrial Corridor District (IC) save the two properties that front onto Long St, which are zoned Central City Corridor (CC) Mixed Use District. Directly behind the Subject Property are properties zoned R-2 (Two-family, low-family residential). Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the Subject Property is a 3-story self-storage company (building footprint: 34,450 SF) which is harmonious with existing patterns of use along River Road (commercial and automobile service uses); and, in addition, the use of a self-storage company has a relatively low impact in terms of building mass, noise and traffic. Because the Subject Property is adjacent to low-family residential to the rear of the property, the proposed development, should the SUP get approved, will have to comply with Sec. 34-457(b)(5)(c): “Along the frontage with any low density residential district, side and rear buffers shall be required, ten (10) feet, minimum, consisting of an S-3 type buffer (refer to section 34-871).” Sec. 34-157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant includes within the project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) a section regarding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 5 Staff Analysis: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Business and Technology. Business and Technology areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “permit small scale offices that cater to start-up businesses and technological development, as well as commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer oriented commercial areas.” Staff believes the proposed use conforms to the Comprehensive Plan’s intent for the Business and Technology area in that a self-storage company is a commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in consumer oriented commercial areas (Total: 151 vehicle trips/day (AM Peak Hour: 28 trips; PM Peak Hour: 29 trips). This can be compared to a home improvement store (30,000 SF) which approximates 1,380 vehicle trips/day (AM Peak Hour: 37; PM Peak Hour: 70); this use similar to the Tractor Supply store that is adjacent to the Subject Property. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 2 – Mixed Use 2.3 Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. Staff Analysis: There is currently no sidewalk on either of the roads (River Road and Belleview Avenue) the Subject Property fronts on. One of the Locust Grove Neighborhood’s long-standing interests is the need for a pedestrian connection from their neighborhood to the commercial activity along River Road, Long St and for those families traveling to one of the City’s public amenities: the Rivanna Trail. In conjunction with a proposed development on the Subject Property comes the opportunity to provide the missing pedestrian connection to the existing sidewalks on adjacent properties and to provide a link to a greater connection to commercial amenities and the Rivanna Trail. The proposed development includes sidewalks five (5) feet in width along Belleview and River Road. In addition, the following improvements are proposed: • four (4) feet wide curbside buffer with street trees located between the sidewalk and River Road 6 • A bulb out to extend at the corner of the intersection of River Road and Belleview Avenue It should be noted that regardless of if the proposed development required a special use permit (SUP) or not, any new development would be required to provide new sidewalk meeting current City standards (five (5) feet in width) via the City Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 34-897 – Pedestrian walkways and Sec. 34-1124 – Vacant lot construction – Required sidewalks, curbs and gutters). However, the proposed development exceeds the current sidewalk requirements provided for in the City’s Zoning Ordinance in that it provides, in addition to the required sidewalk, the above mentioned improvements that comply with the City’s Streets That Work Guidelines. This is detailed below under Transportation. b. Transportation Goal 1 – Complete Streets Streets That Work Plan The applicant’s Streets That Work narrative is included in Attachment 2. The Streets That Work Plan, adopted by City Council September 6, 2016, categorizes Charlottesville’s framework streets into six street typologies, which are based on Complete Street principles. Framework streets are the most direct routes through the city that connect places, neighborhoods, and districts and also serve as emergency vehicle routes. Non-framework streets are considered local streets and make up the majority of the street network. Local streets have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context, right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets. The Streets That Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies of the Streets That Work Plan include design parameters for the street typlogies. Chapter 3 is included as Attachment 6 of this staff report for reference. To access the full Streets That Work Plan, follow this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property fronts on River Road which falls into the Industrial street typology and Belleview Avenue which is considered a non- framework, Local street. 7 River Road: The highest priority elements included in the Industrial street typology are 11’-12’ travel lanes, 5’-6’ clear walk zone for sidewalks and 4’-6’ curbside buffer zones. The proposed development has provided for the highest priority elements with appropriate dimensions: a new 5’ sidewalk along River Road, a 4’ curbside buffer with street trees while maintaining a 12’ travel lane along River Road. However, it is unclear if the sidewalk proposed along River Road meets ADA standards around utility poles. Staff has included a condition as part of the recommendation for the applicant to work with the ADA Coordinator and provide adequate access (3’ minimum required, 4’ preferred) around utility poles, meeting ADA standards. Belleview Avenue: The Subject Property also fronts on Belleview Avenue which is considered a non-framework, Local Street. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear walk zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on- street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements within the Neighborhood B typology. The proposed development has included a new 5’ sidewalk along Belleview Avenue. The plan indicates there being 40’ of right-of-way on Belleview Avenue, where curb to curb width is shown on the plan as approximately 27’-28’, which would allow for approximately 10’-10.5’ travel lanes and 7’ on-street parking on one side, both of these dimensions complying with the Streets That Work Guidelines. Under existing conditions, cars utilize on-street parking along Belleview (many of the cars of which are a result of the auto repair business adjacent to the Subject Property). Because of the real need for on-street parking specific to this area, on-street parking being one of the highest priority elements according to Streets That Work and there being limited right-of-way along Belleview, staff has recommended a condition that requires the applicant to ensure there is on-street parking maintained on one side of Belleview Avenue. Please see the recommended conditions under the Staff Recommendation section of this report. c. Environment Goal 1 – Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement, Value the Rivanna River as a major asset in the life of our city and region and restore it to a healthy condition 8 within our ecosystem in order to improve habitat, watershed health and water quality Goal 4 – Water Resources Protection 4.5 Reduce and/or eliminate stormwater runoff impacts from sites that lack adequate stormwater treatment by incentivizing reductions in overall imperviousness and encrouaging retrofits on developed properties to address stormwater management Staff Analysis: Included in Attachment 1 is a completed Low Impact Development (LID) sheet where the applicant claims 8 points for proposed infiltration on-site. There was previous discussion with the neighborhood where the neighborhood urged the applicant to instead of purchasing credits, providing water quality treatment on-site in light of the Subject Property’s proximity to the Rivanna River. The applicant has since then included treatment on-site which is commended by staff. However, Engineering staff has noted an infiltration practice is desirable as no formal stormwater management infrastructure currently exists on-site. Engineering staff has requested, this request included as part of staff’s recommendation as a condition, that the approval is contingent on an acceptable soil infiltration test and other site conditions (e.g. depth to mean water table). If the infiltration practice is proven unacceptable at this given site, an alternative LID measure (e.g. green roof) be provided and worked through during site plan process with Engineering staff. This condition is intended to be in replace of the applicant buying off-site credits. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 2 – Mixed Use, “Establish a mix of uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for small group interaction throughout Charlottesville” Although the proposed use is similar to those adjacent uses along River Road and it complies with the mentioned commercial activity that does not generate a significant amount of traffic found in the Business and Technology definition, staff believes providing for a small retail space separate from the self-storage company at the front of the building could improve the quality of the site as it would diversify the site, provide more jobs, and better activate the street with a more dynamic commercial use. Staff offered this as a suggestion to the applicant. The applicant has 9 not included a separate retail/commercial use as part of the application. Although staff believes including an additional commercial space would improve the project according to Goal 2 of the Land Use Chapter, staff considers the proposal as is to still comply with the Business and Technology Land Use area. b. Transportation 1.5: Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in conjunction with the planning and design of all major road projects, all new development and road paving projects. Staff Analysis: Bicycle accommodations were not included as part of the proposal; however, bicycle racks will be required per Sec. 34-811 during site plan review process. Sec. 34-157(a)(3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will conform to all applicable building code regulations. Building plans are not yet available for review, but demolition of the existing structure, and construction of the proposed new structure, cannot proceed without separate applications/ review conducted by the City’s Building Code Official. Sec. 34-157(a)(4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Parking: The proposed number of parking spaces (21) meets City parking requirements (See Attachment 3, Preliminary Site Plan). Staff Analysis: In addition to the proposed development meeting parking requirements on-site, the building and parking is regulated in such a way that it: • preserves an existing 27” White Oak that is prominent and fronts on River Road • Provides for a landscape plan that exceeds the 10% landscape coverage requirement (proposed 18% coverage), with the inclusion of the required landscape buffer between the rear of the Subject Property and adjacent low- density single family residences. 10 Traffic: The applicant includes a “potential adverse traffic impacts” section within their project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) and notes a self-storage company generates approximately 29 vehicle trips in the peak hour. The applicant compares this to other potential by-right uses where those uses are noted to have higher trips in the peak hour than a self-storage company. Staff Analysis: Staff agrees the use of a self-storage company (total vehicle trips per day: 151 vehicle trips/day (AM Peak Hour: 28 trips; PM Peak Hour: 29 trips)) will create a minimal traffic impact given the use and earlier in the report compared the vehicle trip generation of this use to a home improvement store (30,000 SF) which approximates (total vehicle trips per day: 1,380 (AM Peak Hour: 37; PM Peak Hour: 70)); this use similar to the Tractor Supply store that is adjacent to the Subject Property. In addition, staff notes the applicant removed an entrance onto Belleview Avenue from earlier preliminary sketches, where now only one entrance/exit remains onto River Road. The neighborhood had voiced concern of there being an entrance off of Belleview Avenue given it is a local, neighborhood street. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment Staff Analysis: Staff does not anticipate there will be significant noise generated from a self-storage company as it is a low traffic use in respect to those in close proximity and operates on normal business hours. Other factors which adversely affect the natural environment: The Subject Property backs up to a low-residential neighborhood and is required to provide per Sec. 34- 457(b)(5)(c) and Sec. 34-872(a)(3) a S-3 type buffer between the use and low density residential district. The preliminary site plan (Attachment 3) accounts for this buffer on Sheet C6. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The project proposal narrative (Attachment B) states the existing use of the property is a vehicle storage lot. 11 Staff Analysis: The lot is an existing one-story brick building where no business is currently located as well as vehicles stored on-site. Staff assumes this is an overflow of the adjacent auto repair business and has not been informed by the applicant of a plan for where these cars should locate. This is important as there is already an issue with parking along Belleview Avenue even with the proposed plan to maintain on- street parking on one side of the street. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base Staff Analysis: The development provides a new business to a lot that is currently underutilized. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available Staff Analysis: The proposed development will have limited effect on community facilities (specifically public utilities) given that the use is low intensity. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood Staff Analysis: The affordable housing ordinance does not apply to this proposed special use permit (SUP) given there are no residential units proposed. g) Impact on school population and facilities Staff Analysis: A self-storage company has no impact on school population or facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Staff Analysis: The proposed project will comply with federal, state and local laws. This is ensured through final site plan approval. 12 j) Massing and scale of project The proposed building has three stories with a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 100,000 SF and has an average height of 30.5’ (36’ height fronting River Road, 24’ at rear of property closest to low-density residential). Staff Analysis: Overall, a building of this height, mass and scale is appropriate in this location. Sec. 34-457 states a maximum of 4 stories (50’) is allowed, where the proposed building is well within the maximum building height of this zoning district. Staff also notes the building has a lower height to the rear of the property in closest proximity to the neighborhood. Please see Attachment 4 for building elevations. In addition, the landscape plan displays required buffers at the rear of the property and the applicant has included additional trees along Belleview Avenue in response to a neighborhood request (See more detailed information regarding neighborhood concerns beneath Public Comment received). Sec. 34-157(a)(5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; Zoning History In 1976 the property was zoned “M-I” Restricted Industrial In 1991 the property was maintained as “M-I” Restricted Industrial The property is currently zoned Industrial Corridor (IC) District. The intent of the Industrial Corridor district is to provide areas for light industrial activity that is directed to assembly and technological businesses rather than heavy manufacturing. This district provides opportunities for large scale commercial uses and manufacturing or industrial type uses that are more compatible with the neighborhoods that surround the manufacturing properties. Regulations provide for buffering from incompatible uses, but encourage these important employment centers to locate within the district. Staff Analysis: Staff believes this use is appropriate within the zoning district as it is not a heavy manufacturing use and provides a low-impact in regards to traffic. The proposed use includes buffering that is compliant with the zoning district. Sec. 34-157(a)(6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and 13 Staff Analysis: The proposed project must comply with standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other applicable city ordinances/regulations prior to final site plan and building permit approvals. The only modification staff proposes is in regards to the setback modification proposed by the applicant to ensure the 27” White Oak tree is preserved on-site. The applicant requests a modification from the 20’ front setback to a 67.1’ maximum setback. Per the City’s Standards and Design Manual (Appendix H), the Best Management Practice for Tree Protection is to provide protection around the critical root zone of the tree, where the limits of the critical root zone are: 1” DBH = 1.5’ radius of the critical root zone. This would mean for a 27” White Oak that protection would need to be applied 40.5’ off the tree. The building proposed in the preliminary site plan (Attachment 3) sits 50’ away from the property line at its farthest point off the property line along River Road and approximately 28’ away from the 27” White Oak which is within the critical root zone. Staff recommends a condition that the building is adjusted to fall outside of the critical root zone in order the tree is adequately protected and preserved in the future. Sec. 34-157(a)(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not located in a design control district. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on July 26, 2017 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are provided for in a list below. If the applicant addressed the neighborhood concern in any way in the application submission dated August 28, 2017, staff has noted how beside the neighborhood concern in bold. • Right-turn only exiting onto Belleview desired. The applicant originally proposed an entrance/exit off of Belleview Avenue, but has now removed this entrance/exit on Belleview Avenue as shown in the preliminary site plan associated with this request (Attachment 3). 14 • Preserve Oak Tree fronting River Road and alter setback as part of SUP if necessary The applicant has proposed the self-storage building with a modified front setback as part of the SUP request (from 20’ to 67.1’ maximum) in order to preserve the 27” Oak Tree. • Include water quality treatment on-site in light of proximity to Rivanna River The applicant has proposed an infiltration system on-site. • Belleview – neighborhood residents prefer a vegetative strip (desire for visual amenities); a curbside buffer if there is room The applicant has increased its landscaping plan to include a curbside buffer along River Road and additional trees adjacent to the proposed building along Belleview Avenue. • Applicant is to ask company if they do online auctioning? (neighborhood concern they would auction on-site) • Parking screening required per code/neighborhood residents would like a mix of evergreens • Plant trees in back instead of fescue The applicant has added trees at the rear of the property which also complies with S-3 screen requirement. • Push building towards Belleview and relegate parking to back The applicant has moved the building to front on Belleview Avenue, pushing parking to the back of building. • Front of River Road provide spaces for leasing opportunities STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the application be approved with the following conditions: 1. The newly constructed sidewalk along River Road will provide for preferred ADA access 4 feet in width around existing utility poles The design and construction plan for the sidewalk, providing the required ADA access widths will be approved by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator and ADA Coordinator and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved ADA access widths and construction details in accordance with the Streets That Work Plan. 2. The sidewalk improvements along Belleview Avenue will be designed to allow on-street parking to be maintained on one side of Belleview Avenue. The design and construction plan for the sidewalk improvements will be approved by the City Engineer, and the final site plan shall incorporate the approved design and construction plan in accordance to the Streets That Work Plan. 3. The building will be no less than 40.5’ away from the existing 27” White Oak tree in order to protect the critical root zone and preserve the 27” White Oak tree on the Subject Property. Final site plan shall incorporate a tree preservation plan approved by the City Arborist. 15 4. The proposed infiltration system shall not be used or installed, unless and until the City Engineer verifies that an acceptable soil infiltration test and other site conditions (e.g. depth to mean water table) are appropriate for use of such system. If the infiltration system is not verified by the City Engineer as appropriate for this site, then an alternative LID measure shall be provided. The final site plan shall incorporate either the City-Engineer-verified infiltration system, or an alternate LID measure. POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of SP-1700002 subject to: • The four (4) conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of SP-1700002. ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application received August 28, 2017 2) Special Use Permit Project Proposal Narrative received August 22, 2017 3) Preliminary Site Plan dated August 22, 2017 4) Building elevations 5) 901 River Road Sidewalk Exhibit 6) Streets That Work Plan Excerpt 16 TMP: 490098000 901 River Road Zoning Amendment Request/Special Use Permit Project Narrative August 22, 2017 Project Proposal: In accordance with Section 158 in Chapter 34 of Charlottesville City Code, River Road Plaza, LLC, requests a Special Use Permit to establish a self-storage company on a parcel currently zoned Industrial Corridor (IC). Referenced in Section 480 in Chapter 34, self-storage companies are allowed by Special Use Permit in areas regulated by Industrial Corridor regulations. The proposed development is a three story short-term self-storage facility. The property is used as a commercial vehicle storage lot. The development will have minimal impact on street traffic as business patrons are likely to only intermittently access their storage unit. The proposed development includes the construction of a 5’ sidewalk on the south side of Belleview Avenue and the northwest side of River Road, completing a pedestrian connection between the Locust Grove neighborhood and River Road, and extending along River Road to Long St. (250 Bypass) and a trailhead of the Rivanna Trail. This pedestrian connection ultimately creates a more cohesive connection between the Locust Grove residential neighborhood and the Rivanna River Greenway Trail. Special Use Permit Requested: Self Storage Company in Industrial Corridor Property Description/ Parcel ID 490098000 Existing Conditions: 2.203 acres Commercial Vehicle Parking Proposed Use: 3 Story Self Storage Facility 103,350 Square Feet Affordable Housing Data: There are no existing dwelling units on the property and there are no proposed dwelling units on the property. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The development is consistent with Goal 5.6 in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan because there is an appropriate buffer between the self-storage structure and the adjacent Residential (R-1) properties and because a short-term self-storage facility is a use that is compatible with surrounding uses. River Road and Belleview Avenue feature a variety of commercial, business, and light industrial uses ranging from a pharmacy, to auto repair and body shops, to warehouse storage, and equipment rental companies. Consistent with Goal 2 in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, a self-storage facility would diversify the business presence in the Locust Grove neighborhood, establishing a mix of uses within walking distance of a residential neighborhood. The 5’ sidewalk included in the development increases connectivity by means of a more formal pedestrian pathway. This is a critical connection along Belleview Avenue and River Road, allowing Locust Grove residents to safely walk from their residences to the Rivanna River Trail. Goal 2.3 of the Land Use chapter in the Comprehensive Plan aims to “enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and greenspaces.” A sidewalk adjacent to the property boundary aligns with this goal. A special use permit allowing this development will permit the completion of this pedestrian network in correlation with the completion of the self-storage company. The future land use map identifies the parcel in a Business and Technology district. This development proposes a use for the property that fits within this district while maintaining respect for and the integrity of the nearby residential neighborhood. A self-storage company generates tax revenues for the city while having no measurable impact on public utilities, namely water and sewer. Compliance with USBC Provisions The proposed development is new construction and will comply with all USBC provisions. Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts The development of the parcel in accordance with current stormwater regulations will improve the condition of stormwater management on the site, because no formal stormwater management infrastructure currently exists on the site. Proper stormwater management infrastructure on the site will mitigate any adverse impacts of stormwater runoff from the site into the Rivanna River, ultimately reducing any negative impacts on the Chesapeake Bay from development of the site and protecting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Potential Adverse Traffic Impacts There are no adverse traffic impacts expected with the construction of this site. The self-storage building is, according to Online Traffic Impact Study Software (OTISS), expected to generate 29 trips in the peak hour. Considering the potential by-right uses allowed in the industrial corridor zoning district, this use creates minimal traffic. Examples of potential uses in this location and their associated traffic are listed in the table below. Note that a combination of the listed uses could be used on site. AM PM Use Description ITE Qty in out Total in out Total 103,350 Mini-Warehouse 151 sf 13 15 28 15 14 29 Office Building 710 10,000 sf 26 4 30 15 75 90 Apartments 220 43 units 8 18 26 25 16 41 Convenience Store 852 3,000 sf 50 48 98 53 56 109 In general, there are fewer trips associated with this use as compared to other potential uses. Additionally, the trips to and from the site are more evenly distributed, creating less chance of congestion. Compliance with Charlottesville Streets that Work Plan In compliance with Charlottesville’s Streets that Work Plan, the development will adhere to the highest priorities outlined in the design elements of Industrial Streets. The development will complete pedestrian connections adjacent to the site along River Road and Belleview Avenue. The design will feature a 5’ sidewalk along River Road and a 4’ buffer. The 5’ sidewalk will provide sufficient space for comfortable use of the right of way by various users including strollers, children, and exercisers. The buffer will include medium size street trees; tree inclusion in industrial street design is of highest priority as it creates aesthetic, ecological, and psychological benefits. In addition to the aforementioned benefits, street trees will establish a buffer between pedestrians and street traffic, an additional safety feature. The addition of a 5’ sidewalk and 4’ buffer along River Road will still allow for a 12’ travel lane, this lane width abides by a high priority design element outlined in the Streets that Work plan. A bulb out will extend from the corner of the intersection of River Road and Belleview Avenue. This will slow traffic making a left turn from Belleview Avenue onto River Road and will slow traffic making a left turn from River Road onto local road, Belleview Avenue. A 5’ sidewalk will complete pedestrian connections along Belleview Avenue. This sidewalk width will accommodate the needs of neighborhood residents without compromising the quaint feel of the local road. This page intentionally left blank. PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 901 RIVER ROAD EXIST LEGEND NEW DESCRIPTION TAX MAP 49, PARCEL 98 FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=1000' OWNER/DEVELOPER ZONING ALTH OF WE V W ON IR E C OMM I GI LEGAL REFERENCE V NI A SITE E JUSTIN M. SHIMP R45183 Lic. No. R R PR EE BENCHMARK O FE O N F S S IO E NGI NAL SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPO BUILDING HEIGHT COVER SHEET BUILDING SETBACKS SHEET INDEX SHEET C1 - COVER SHEET SHEET C2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN CRITICAL SLOPES SHEET C3 - SITE PLAN SHEET C4 - GRADING PLAN SHEET C5 - UTILITY PLAN LIGHTING EXISTING USE SHEET C6 - LANDSCAPE PLAN PROPOSED USE FLOOD ZONE NOTES LAND USE SCHEDULE WATER & SANITARY SERVICES 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC / TELEPHONE / CABLE TV PARKING SCHEDULE LAND DISTURBANCE STORMWATER COMPLIANCE UTILITY MARKINGS ITE TRIP GENERATION CITY PERMITS SIGNS APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE 91 SOILS LEGEND F O PR C OMM O ON FE R SS PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IO DEMOLITION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. NAL Lic. No.E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V R 45183 I V NG 901 River Road IN IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP E EE R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W O PR C OMM ON FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN F SS WE R PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Lic. No. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. IONAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT EN V R 45183 V GI I 901 River Road N IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE E R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W O PR C OMM ON OFE PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN R WE GRADING PLAN Lic. No. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. NAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V R 45183 V I 901 River Road F S S IO E NGIN IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP E EE R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W O PR C OMM ON FOF E S R PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WE UTILITY PLAN Lic.R S ION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E V AL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT N I No. 45183 V GI 901 River Road N E IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. ALTH OF WE V W ON IR E C OMM GI I NI A V Lic. No.E JUSTIN M. SHIMP R 45183 R R PR EE FO S S IONAL E NGI FE O N SEE PLANS FOR EXACT LAYOUT. SPACE SET SHRUB PLUMB. TOP OF PLANTS AS SPECIFIED IN PLANT LIST ROOTBALL SHALL NOT BE MORE OR AS SHOWN. ADJUST SPACING AS THAN 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE NECESSARY OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL MULCH 2" DEEP LANDSCAPE PLAN IMMEDIATELY AFTER 3" TALL WATERING PLANTING AND WATER BERM THOROUGHLY. FINISHED GRADE PLANTING PIT. PREPARED SOIL FOR SHRUBS 1/2 BALL VARIES DIA. MIN SOIL SURFACE ROUGHENED TO BIND NEW SOIL 901 River Road PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Metal coping - color to match brick "Heritage Velour" MBCI 7.2 Panel Horizontal - Signature 200 "Charcoal Gray" Brick soldier course, 1" proud, Carolina Ceramics Brick Company "Burgandy Velour" 9931 Two Notch Rd. Brick soldier courses, 1" proud, Columbia, SC 29223 "Heritage Velour" (803) 788-1916 carolinaceramics.com Brick veneer - running bond - Peeble Beach Velour Brick soldier course, typical - Pebble Beach Velour Heritage Velour Burgundy Velour Burgundy Velour Brick rowlock @ window sill, typical - Peeble Beach Velour Kawneer Trifab451 storefront window with clear anodized aluminum frame Brick veneer - running bond - Pebble Beach Velour Soldier course over opening, typical Brick veneer - running bond - Burgundy Velour MBCI PBR Panel Vertical - Signature 200 "Charcoal Gray" 37.333' A2.02 3/32" T.O. Brick Parapet 36.666' T.O. Mtl Parapet 1 35.333' MBCI 7.2 panel, signature200 Metal gutter - signature 200 T.O. Mtl Parapet 2 "Charcoal Gray" "Ash Gray" 34.166' 6'-0" T.O. Mtl Parapet 3 5'-4" Metal gutter - signature 200 4'-0" 2'-10" 31.333' "Ash Gray" T.O. Low Eave Metal gutter - signature 200 "Ash Gray" 10'-8" 20.666' T.O. Slab 10'-4" MBCI 7.2 Panel - Signature 200 "Light Stone" 10.333' T.O. Slab Retaining Wall in front 10'-4" 00.00' T.O. Slab A2.04 3/32" MBCI 7.2 panel vertical - signature 200 "Ash Gray" MBCI 7.2 panel, Horizontal, Signature200, "Charcoal Gray" MBCI PBR panel, Vertical, Signature200, "Charcoal Gray" Line of retaining wall in front A2.06 3/32" 37.333' MBCI 7.2 panel, Signature200 T.O. Brick Parapet Vertical "Ash Gray" 36.666' MBCI 7.2 Vertical panel, MBCI 7.2 panel, Horizontal, T.O. Mtl Parapet 1 signature200 "Ash Gray" Signature200, "Charcoal Gray" 35.333' MBCI 7.2 panel, signature200 MBCI PBR "Charcoal Gray" T.O. Mtl Parapet 2 "Charcoal Gray" 34.166' 6'-0" T.O. Mtl Parapet 3 5'-4" 4'-0" 2'-10" 31.333' T.O. Low Eave BUILDING ELEVATIONS 10'-8" 20.666' T.O. Slab 10'-4" 10.333' T.O. Slab Metal roll up doors in "Go Store It Red" - Pantone 1795C PROPOSED DESIGN 10'-4" Retaining AUGUST 22, 2017 Wall Beyond Metal pier and header system, Signature 200 "Light Stone" 00.00' T.O. Slab Double sliding glass doors, typical for 3 Standing seam metal awning - Iron Ore, Typical Pier & header system by MBCI - Signature 200 Light Stone A2.08 3/32" Metal roll up doors at exterior unconditioned units "Go Store It Red" - Pantone 1795C 901 RI VER ROAD SI DEWALK EXHI BIT tmp 49- 98 PROPOSED SI DEWALKS EXISTI NG SIDEWALKS Attachment 4 Meeting Date October 10, 2017 Minutes Excerpt: 901 River Road Public Hearing Comments: Amanda Burbage: 1203 Belleview Avenue, 1) Self-storage is not a neighborhood-oriented use. The IC zoning district is a permissive district that allows for a wide range of potential uses. Although self-storage is permitted within the IC district, it is not a neighborhood amenity that contributes to walkability or a sense of place, but instead primarily serves those living outside of the neighborhood. A majority of those using the facility will be driving moving trucks or vehicles towing trailers, generating additional vehicle trips and placing additional burden on neighborhood streets like Belleview that already experience a large volume of speeding cut through traffic. While a sidewalk along Belleview is proposed, an amenity any developer of this site would be required to provide, the use itself is not likely to generate any pedestrian trips. This site is a prime location for neighborhood oriented mixed-use development that provides opportunities for Locust Grove residents and Belleview and River Road employees to patronize businesses without needing to get in their cars. There are many by right uses within the IC district that would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.2) The use does not align with the City's vision for future land use in this location. The City's future land use map designates this area as a Business and Technology district intended to cater to start-up businesses and technological development. A self- storage facility with two employees is not a significant employment generator nor does it help to expand the City's tax base. At the community meeting held in our neighborhood over the summer, the applicant disclosed that the type of construction used for facilities of this sort does not allow for the building to be repurposed for another use. Therefore, if such a facility is constructed in this location, it is conceivable that it could remain there for the next 30-70 years and would not provide space for technology and innovation. 3) The use does not contribute to placemaking along the Rivanna River. While today River Road is predominately industrial in character, the prevailing development pattern turns its back on a significant natural and cultural amenity, the Rivanna River. The Rivanna is becoming increasingly valued for its environmental, aesthetic and recreational benefits as well as its potential to be a driver for economic development and placemaking in the City and in Albemarle County. As one of the few remaining vacant lots along River Road, the development of this lot will set the tone for future redevelopment along this corridor. It would be a shame to see an area with so much potential remain locked in a 20th century pattern of growth that does not recognize the value of this community asset. David Hirschman: 1107 Calhoun Street: We had a very good neighborhood meeting, Ms. Newmyer and the developer and engineer came. We liked that as a constructive process. Ms. Newmyer did an exceptional job communicating with us. Regarding stormwater we thought that this project is right across the street from the Rivanna River that it would be important to do their water treatment on site. The applicant is correct, all across the Charlottesville most developers are purchasing off site credits so what that means is that they are spending money for water quality treatment that should be taking place for our city but is going to some type of nutrient or wetland bank in Goochland County or somewhere far away from here and that is standard practice across the state. It is something that the local jurisdiction have been wrestling with because , because when a development goes into a community ensuring the protection of our own water quality by shipping that money to other places. Since it is an SUP, we requested that they do take a stab at doing onsite stormwater treatment and they Attachment 4 did provide what they refer to as infiltration facility. He encourages to stick with the condition the staff put on to work with the engineering department the viability of a good practice that will work with this site. There is a variety of good practices that could be used. He would hate to see that condition go away. From: Jim Richardson To: Newmyer, Heather Cc: Laura Dewald Richardson Subject: Concern regarding Special Use Permit Application Number SP17-00002 Date: Thursday, October 05, 2017 9:44:33 AM Attachments: Request for Transportation Study - Belleview Ave 140219.pdf Dear Ms. Newmyer, Thank you for your letter notifying me of the application for a Special Use Permit SP17-00002. I am a resident of Belleview Ave, just a few houses from the proposed development, and I do not support the application for Special Use Permit. The proposed self-storage company does not belong in or adjacent to our neighborhood. Unlike a self-storage building, developments such a new restaurant or mixed-use housing development would offer amenities that help to build community. A storage building does not offer any useful amenities to the neighborhood residents, and instead only offers new construction that is not in scale with the neighborhood, offers only opaque and unfriendly exterior walls populated with garage doors, and vacuously anonymous parking lots adjacent to the street. In addition, my understanding is that such a storage facility could not be converted in the future to other, more appropriate uses, including multi-family housing. A new storage building does bring with it additional unwanted volume of traffic, the kind of trips made by big trucks, U-hauls, and vehicles towing trailers that are the most unsafe for neighborhood residents. The Locust Grove Neighborhood, and Belleview Ave in particular, are plagued by a large volume of cut- through traffic that travels from Rio Rd to Pantops, and then back again. This traffic frequently drives too fast, making our streets unsafe. The proposed self-storage facility would make this worse. On Belleview Ave alone, there are many houses where families with small children live and play. Walks with baby strollers, or by pedestrians with leashed pets, are common. While parked street-side adjacent to my house, my car has been hit by such cut-through traffic no fewer than 4 times in the past few years, including 2 lost side-view mirrors and one side-swipe (all hit and runs), and most significantly one accident which caused substantial damage to my car’s bumper and rear end, completely totaling the car of the driver who hit it. Thankfully none of these incidents resulted in physical harm. The addition of a self-storage facility would increase traffic volume and decrease the safety of our neighborhood streets for residents. Belleview Ave is a neighborhood street, not designated as a collector road. A few years ago, in October 2013, the Locust Grove Neighborhood Association submitted a Request for Transportation Study to the city, signed by many local residents, to perform a traffic study. To my knowledge such a study was never performed, and residents’ concerns about the volume and speed of traffic were not addressed. I’ve attached a copy of that petition for your reference. Despite these serious concerns about the proposed development that demonstrate incompatibility with the neighborhood, if the Special Use Permit is granted, what could the developer do to assuage such negative impacts to the neighborhood? The developer should turn Belleview Ave into a cul-de-sac, dead- ending Belleview Ave southeast of Coleman St. All construction vehicles should use River Rd only. This initiative would separate the neighborhood from the industrial uses along River Road, reinforce the city’s zoning, and reduce the volume of traffic and with it the speed of traffic.   Sincerely, Jim Richardson 1219 Belleview Ave From: Jennifer Sturek To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: 901 River Road Development Concerns Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:40:27 AM Heather, Thank you for your time yesterday afternoon. As I said on the phone, I am concerned about the plan for the self-storage unit at 901 River Road. I live on River Vista Avenue and frequently take Bellvue down to River Road to take my children to school (at Burnley-Moran) or go to work (at Pantops). I am concerned because this stretch of road is already highly traveled and seems to exceed the limits of what the road can handle. I am also following up with Mr. Duncan regarding questions about onstreet parking by businesses on that stretch of road. Additionally, there is not a continuous sidewalk and this also makes a trip on foot down Bellvue to River Road especially unwise. I would like to see a sidewalk on Bellvue and River Road and I am not in favor of any development that would increase traffic on this route. In particular, a self-storage facility, which does not add goods or services to the neighbors already in place in this part of Charlottesville, feels out-of-place. It seems a self-storage facility will be pulling traffic in from the city at large and cause more congestion in an already busy area. Thank you, Jennifer Sturek 1221 River Vista Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22901 (434) 284-1775 (Jen) jcsturek@gmail.com From: Shirley To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: Fwd: 2 Emails About Development Projects: MACAA & River Road Self Storage Date: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:05:44 AM FYI, thanks. Shirley Roberts -----Original Message----- From: LGNA Secretary To: Shirley Sent: Sat, Sep 2, 2017 11:47 am Subject: Re: 2 Emails About Development Projects: MACAA & River Road Self Storage Thank you Shirley. I think many in that area agree with you. I would recommend sharing your comments with Heather so that they can be recorded: newmyerh@charlottesville.org On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Shirley wrote: Thank you for this information. I have not attended meetings but do keep up with the e-mails, for which I thank you. Regarding the River Road Storage issue, my thoughts on this is that traffic is already very heavy on River Road as well as Belleview Avenue and I don't feel we need any more traffic. It is already difficult to get in and out of this area from Coleman Street. The car repair shop keeps the street blocked continuously with their business, and traffic that cuts through Belleview from Locust and/or St. Clair as a short cut makes it even more difficult for the immediate residents. In addition, CrossFit takes up a lot of parking along Belleview and Coleman. They claim they don't have enough parking for their patrons so they park on Belleview and Coleman, limiting resident parking. One other thing about CrossFit is that the patrons run up and down those streets as part of their exercising and it is only a matter of time before one of them gets hit by traffic. I just wanted to express my own personal thoughts on this matter. Thank you again for the e-mail. Shirley Roberts 1004 Coleman Street -----Original Message----- From: LGNA Secretary To: Ashley Cooper ; David Hirschman Sent: Sat, Sep 2, 2017 10:40 am Subject: 2 Emails About Development Projects: MACAA & River Road Self Storage Neighbors, I am sending you 2 separate emails about these projects -- both come from our neighborhood planner, Heather Newmyer, and I am forwarding the information to the list. This first email is about MACAA. The 2nd one will be about River Road. From Heather: Good morning, You are receiving this e-mail because you either attended the MACAA Community meeting held on July 17, 2017, have sent public comments to me directly, attended the August 8, 2017 Planning Commission meeting to provide comment on the MACAA application, or all of these things combined. I am reaching out to notify you that the applicant has submitted a revised MACAA’s PUD Development Plan on August 28, 2017 in efforts to respond to some of the concerns posed by the neighborhood, Planning Commission and staff. These materials, submitted August 28th, are now available on the NDS webpage underneath the table “What’s Hot!”: http://www.charlottesville. org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services The applicant provided a cover letter (available online as the 1st link under What’s Hot table) that lists the major changes to the plan and following the cover letter is a 2nd link provided that directs you to the updated PUD Development Plan with any changes with revision clouds. This application will be moving forward to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2017 and will be addressed as a formal Public Hearing. The Ad and mailing will go out in a couple weeks, but I wanted to make you aware early on as you have been invested in this process and might be interested in reviewing the materials in advance. The staff report with staff’s analysis on the revised materials will be available and posted online the week before (1st week of October) the Public Hearing and will be located on the Planning Commission Agenda webpage: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments- and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/development-ordinances/city- planning-commission/agendas/2017-agenda To the Neighborhood Leaders copied to this chain, please free to forward this along to any other interested party. As always, I am available for questions and concerns. If any of you would like to meet, I am happy to meet and discuss the plan with you between now and the Public Hearing. I have encouraged the applicant to reach out to the neighborhood as well. If you would like to send me public comments to be included in the updated staff report, I would need them by no later than September 29th. -- The Locust Grove Neighborhood Association is a rather informal community group. Our hope is to foster friendship and good living. To unsubscribe reply "off the list please". -- The Locust Grove Neighborhood Association is a rather informal community group. Our hope is to foster friendship and good living. To unsubscribe reply "off the list please". From: Amanda Burbage To: kkeesecker@brw-architects.com; Green, Lisa; Clayborne, Corey; Dowell, Taneia; Keller, Genevieve; Lahendro, Jody; Santoski, John; beh9ef@virginia.edu Cc: Newmyer, Heather; Creasy, Missy Subject: Proposed Self Storage Facility at 901 River Road Date: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:53:34 AM Dear Charlottesville Planning Commissioners, I am writing concerning a public hearing item on your agenda today, the special use permit request to locate a self storage facility at 901 River Road. As a resident of Locust Grove, I have several concerns about permitting this use in this location that I urge you to consider when evaluating its potential impact on our neighborhood: 1) Self-storage is not a neighborhood-oriented use. The IC zoning district is a permissive district that allows for a wide range of potential uses. Although self storage is permitted within the IC district, it is not a neighborhood amenity that contributes to walkability or a sense of place, but instead primarily serves those living outside of the neighborhood. A majority of those using the facility will be driving moving trucks or vehicles towing trailers, generating additional vehicle trips and placing additional burden on neighborhood streets like Belleview that already experience a large volume of speeding cut through traffic. While a sidewalk along Belleview is proposed, an amenity any developer of this site would be required to provide, the use itself is not likely to generate any pedestrian trips. This site is a prime location for neighborhood oriented mixed-use development that provides opportunities for Locust Grove residents and Belleview and River Road employees to patronize businesses without needing to get in their cars. There are many by right uses within the IC district that would be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2) The use does not align with the City's vision for future land use in this location. The City's future land use map designates this area as a Business and Technology district intended to cater to start up businesses and technological development. A self storage facility with two employees is not a significant employment generator nor does it help to expand the City's tax base. At the community meeting held in our neighborhood over the summer, the applicant disclosed that the type of construction used for facilities of this sort does not allow for the building to be repurposed for another use. Therefore, if such a facility is constructed in this location, it is conceivable that it could remain there for the next 30-70 years and would not provide space for technology and innovation. 3) The use does not contribute to placemaking along the Rivanna River. While today River Road is predominately industrial in character, the prevailing development pattern turns its back on a significant natural and cultural amenity, the Rivanna River. The Rivanna is becoming increasingly valued for its environmental, aesthetic and recreational benefits as well as its potential to be a driver for economic development and placemaking in the City and in Albemarle County. As one of the few remaining vacant lots along River Road, the development of this lot will set the tone for future redevelopment along this corridor. It would be a shame to see an area with so much potential remain locked in a 20th century pattern of growth that does not recognize the value of this community asset. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mandy Burbage 1203 Belleview Avenue From: Ben Henderson To: Newmyer, Heather Subject: SP17-00002 - 901 River Road SUP Request Date: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 3:44:41 PM Good Afternoon Heather- I am a resident of the Locust Grove Neighborhood and live on Saint Clair Avenue up the hill from the proposed development. I do not support the use of the property as a self-storage facility. If the property is zoned Industrial Corridor, then I would like to see the property used as such- light industrial activity that produces jobs and increased tax revenue. I do not believe that a self storage use provides enough economic activity to justify its placement in this area. Secondly, if the property is not to be used for Light Industrial purposes, I would prefer a re- zoning and re-planning of the entire River Road corridor to provide for locally-relevant commercial and recreational activity that makes full use of the natural capital and community connections already present in the area. Locust Grove is a wonderful neighborhood and would be greatly enhanced with walkable, neighborhood-scale businesses and parks. Development of additional green infrastructure to complement the Rivanna Trail and views of the river would continue to improve the community and the city as a whole. In closing, locking up land in a self storage use denies economic benefit to the city and jobs to residents at best, and perpetuates the failure to capitalize on the natural amenities available. Industrial development with jobs is ok; neighborhood mixed use, commercial, and parks would be a much better. Thank you, Ben Henderson (address available upon request) CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: November 6, 2017 Action Required: Acceptance of Revised Scope of Work Staff Contacts: Maurice Jones, City Manager Brian Daly Presenter: Kathy Galvin, City Councilor Title: Downtown Parks Master Plan Review of Scope Background: In May of 2016, the Charlottesville City Council made a clear commitment to reveal and tell the full story of race in Charlottesville through the City’s public spaces by establishing a Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials and Public Spaces (BRC). The BRC’s Final Report acknowledged that far too often Charlottesville’s 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. The public spaces of Charlottesville’s Historic North Downtown and Court Square Districts contain the Robert E. Lee statue in Emancipation Park, the Stonewall Jackson statue in Justice Park, the slave auction block and the Reconstruction era’s Freedman’s Bureau. The BRC also imagined that a new public history, revealed in our parks and on our streets, may be accomplished by new public art, new interpretive narratives, creative place-making initiatives, and wayfinding signs. The City Council resolved at its meeting of February 6, 2017 to transform the City of Charlottesville’s public spaces in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC. As directed by the Council, staff worked with representatives of the PLACE Design Task Force, Jefferson School Heritage Center, the Human Rights Commission and the Historic Resources Committee to develop the RFP for design services which was posted in July of 2017. The City received six proposals, five days after the tragic events of August 12th. Discussion: As a result of the horrific incidents of violence in Charlottesville and at the urging of a number of residents, the City thought it was best to re-evaluate our approach to the redesign of the downtown parks. The previous RFP was cancelled and work began on a new approach. City Councilor Kathy Galvin and City staff met with PLACE Design Task Force member Rachel Lloyd, Jefferson School Executive Director Andrea Douglas and UVA Architecture Professor Beth Meyer to develop a phased approach to the redesign that would take into consideration the traumatic shock to our residents and allow for the community to heal and reflect before major renovations would take place. This approach was especially important because the timing of the possible removal of the Lee and Jackson statues is unknown at this time due to litigation. Phase I of the new process, which would be considered an interim master plan and is outlined in the attached resolution, would call for the redesign of Emancipation (formerly Lee) and Justice (formerly Jackson) parks and the Jefferson Madison Regional library front and side yards in accordance with the following goals by phase; • Engage the community at large in a comprehensive discussion about the purpose, meaning and character of Charlottesville’s downtown public spaces. • Engage the community in a manner that ensures the City’s underrepresented populations are fulsomely included in the process, as well as the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) the Historic Resources Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the University of Virginia, the PLACE Design Task Force, Planning Commission and City Council. • Ensure that a facilitator (s) with demonstrated expertise in the history of the American South and African Americans, social equity, urban design and urban redevelopment issues is an integral part of the consultant team, and that said facilitator(s) leads a community engagement process in a manner that elicits authentic feedback from the entire community such that it genuinely informs the work of the design and technical professionals on the consultant team. • Provide a well-designed and coherent interpretation of the Lee and Jackson statues that will promote an honest and complete narrative of Charlottesville’s past and aspirational future in the near-term, knowing that Emancipation and Justice Parks will eventually be more fully redesigned subsequent to the removal of both the Lee and Jackson statues. • Replace the current plaque at the slave auction block with one that is more prominent and legible; • Investigate the relevance of the Court Square area to the Reconstruction era and if affirmed, recommend a method of acknowledgment. • Work with the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) to appropriately place and install the EJI lynching marker to commemorate the July 12, 1898 lynching of John Henry James, an African American from Charlottesville. • Create plans for the rehabilitation of the most severely deteriorated landscapes within Emancipation and Justice Parks and the grounds surrounding the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, knowing that Emancipation and Justice Parks will eventually be more fully redesigned subsequent to the removal of both the Lee and Jackson statues. Phase II of the Master Plan, which would begin subsequent to the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues, would involve the following: • Build on the shared understandings developed through Phase I’s extensive community engagement process to create new comprehensive designs for Emancipation and Justice parks without the Lee and Jackson statues in place that would include but not be limited to; A new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population within Justice Park in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, and Exploring opportunities within Emancipation Park to interpret history through artwork such as murals or other public art forms, in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space as well as exploring opportunities for a new memorial within Emancipation Park should such a public aspiration arise in the course of Phase I’s community engagement process. • Fully interpret Charlottesville’s downtown public parks in keeping with the BRC’s recommendations such that a more complete and coherent history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed. Several additional issues are addressed in the resolution including the creation of two interim master plans to explore a future with and without the statues, plus the initiation of a fundraising effort to supplement the previously agreed to $1,000,000 budget for the project.. The staff would also be directed to post the RFP no more than 60 days after the passage of the resolution and after consulting with representatives from several institutions in the community. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Priority Areas: 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. C’ville Arts and Culture 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. Through City partnerships and promotion of festivals, venues, and events, all have an opportunity to be a part of this thriving arts, cultural, and entertainment scene. Strategic Plan Areas: Goal 3: A beautiful and sustainable natural and built environment Citizen Engagement: Several meetings have been held in the last six months to address this issue. In addition, there will be a significant community engagement effort associated with the redesign of the parks. Budgetary Impact: The City Council has agreed to fund upward of $1,000,000 for the redesign effort. It is anticipated that Phase II of the project could exceed that number. City staff will be directed to seek private fundraising dollars for any expense above $1,000,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the new resolution. Alternatives: City Council could decide not to approve the resolution. Attachment: Downtown Parks Master Plan Draft Resolution RESOLUTION: To fully interpret key downtown public spaces within the City of Charlottesville, north of the historic Downtown Pedestrian Mall and east of the historic McGuffey School, 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 relations 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 Charlottesville with regards to race through its 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 Ku Klux Klan rally at Justice Park (formerly Jackson) on July 8, 2017 and the Unite the Right rally at Emancipation Park (formerly Lee) on August 12, 2017 and the ensuing violence perpetrated by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, served to amplify the original purpose of the Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson statues as symbols of racial oppression, overwhelmingly directed towards African Americans, but now also immigrants, refugees, Hispanics, the LGBTQ community, and religious minorities like Jews and Muslims; WHEREAS the City’s key downtown public parks within the area north of the historic Downtown Pedestrian Mall and east of the historic McGuffey School, currently contain the Robert E. Lee statue in Emancipation Park, the Stonewall Jackson statue in Justice Park, the slave auction block in the area known as Court Square (an area that may have also played a role during the Reconstruction era); WHEREAS it is the will of the Charlottesville City Council that the Robert E. Lee statue be relocated (as per a 3:2 majority vote by City Council on February 6, 2017) and the “Stonewall” Jackson statue be relocated (as per the 5:0 unanimous vote by City Council on August 21, 2017,) to either a battlefield or a museum outside of the City limits pending Virginia Court decisions and/or changes in the Virginia Code; and WHEREAS the exact date of the removal of the Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson statues is as yet unknown and may take considerable time to be resolved by the Courts and General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, but the need to change the narrative surrounding these statues and tell the full story of race through our City’s public spaces is immediate. BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Charlottesville directs staff to: Develop a two-phased Master Plan [herein referred to as the Interim and Final Master Plan] for the redesign of the Emancipation (formerly Lee) and Justice (formerly Jackson) parks and the Jefferson Madison Regional library front and side yards in accordance with the following goals by phase; • PHASE I-Interim Master Plan (to begin immediately prior to the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues): o Engage the community at large in a comprehensive discussion about the purpose, meaning and character of Charlottesville’s downtown public spaces, including but not limited to addressing issues such as;  What are the community’s values and how should they be reflected in our public parks and civic institutional spaces like libraries and court houses?  What is the purpose of Emancipation and Justice Parks?  Are they memorial spaces (who or what to memorialize?)  Are they outdoor museums (what stories should they tell?) 1  What is the appropriate character and scale of community gathering and event spaces in the City’s downtown parks and can Emancipation and Justice Parks be made to accommodate those parameters in light of our community’s values? o Engage the community in a manner that ensures the City’s underrepresented populations are fulsomely included in the process, as well as the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) the Historic Resources Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the University of Virginia, the PLACE Design Task Force, Planning Commission and City Council. o Ensure that a facilitator (s) with demonstrated expertise in the history of the American South and African Americans, social equity, urban design and urban redevelopment issues is an integral part of the consultant team, and that said facilitator(s) leads a community engagement process in a manner that elicits authentic feedback from the entire community such that it genuinely informs the work of the design and technical professionals on the consultant team. o Provide a well-designed and coherent interpretation of the Lee and Jackson statues that will promote an honest and complete narrative of Charlottesville’s past and aspirational future in the near-term, knowing that Emancipation and Justice Parks will eventually be more fully redesigned subsequent to the removal of both the Lee and Jackson statues. o Replace the current plaque at the slave auction block with one that is more prominent and legible; o Investigate the relevance of the Court Square area to the Reconstruction era and if affirmed, recommend a method of acknowledgment. o Work with the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) to appropriately place and install the EJI lynching marker to commemorate the July 12, 1898 lynching of John Henry James, an African American from Charlottesville. o Create plans for the rehabilitation of the most severely deteriorated landscapes within Emancipation and Justice Parks and the grounds surrounding the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, knowing that Emancipation and Justice Parks will eventually be more fully redesigned subsequent to the removal of both the Lee and Jackson statues. • PHASE II-Final Master Plan (to begin, subsequent to the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues): o Build on the shared understandings developed through Phase I’s extensive community engagement process to create new comprehensive designs for Emancipation and Justice parks without the Lee and Jackson statues in place that would include but not be limited to;  A new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population within Justice Park in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space, and  Exploring opportunities within Emancipation Park to interpret history through artwork such as murals or other public art forms, in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC while retaining its ability to function as a community gathering space as well as exploring opportunities for a new memorial within Emancipation Park should such a public aspiration arise in the course of Phase I’s community engagement process. o Fully interpret Charlottesville’s downtown public parks in keeping with the BRC’s recommendations such that a more complete and coherent history of race is told and the City’s commitment to truth, freedom and equity is affirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for PHASE I-Interim Master Plan for professional services in the areas of community process facilitation, landscape architecture, urban design, art and history shall be developed within 60 days of the adoption of this Resolution, in consultation with community and stakeholder groups chosen by the City Manager as directed by the City Council (including but not limited to the Jefferson School 2 African American Heritage Center, the University of Virginia, the PLACE Design Task Force, the Human Rights Commission and the Historic Resources Commission). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the scope of the RFP for PHASE I-Interim Master Plan shall: • Provide at least two interim Master Plan options with both statues in place, for each park within the downtown public parks precinct, inclusive of new site plans, elevations and sections, 3D visualizations, and specifications for signage, screening, commemorative plaques, lighting and landscape elements as appropriate throughout Emancipation and Justice Parks so as to create a more honest, complete and coherent narrative of Charlottesville’s past and aspirational future without running afoul of present Virginia laws prohibiting the movement or tampering of statuary and monuments that could be construed to be war memorials in a Virginia Court of Law. • Lead to concrete deliverables that will have immediate visual impact including but not limited to; o short-term projects that are art-based, o new and changing interpretive panels in keeping with the Court’s injunctions, o the rehabilitation of the most severely deteriorated landscapes in both parks and the library grounds, and o the removal and replacement of the black plastic shrouds with a more meaningful and artful treatment that would reveal the complete meaning of the statues while safeguarding them from vandalism. • Establish a timeline to be completed within 12 months of contract signing. • Not preclude the future development, design and implementation of the PHASE II- Final Master Plan as adopted by a future City Council. • Be given three months to prepare responses from the date of issuance of the RFP. • Be funded up to $1,000,000.00 for the completion, fabrication and installation of the PHASE I-interim Master Plan inclusive of community engagement, developing and completing schematic design options and design development drawings, construction documents, the new interpretive installations in both the Emancipation and Justice Parks and rehabilitating the most severely deteriorated landscapes in both parks and the library grounds, knowing that Emancipation and Justice Parks will eventually be more fully redesigned subsequent to the removal of both the Lee and Jackson statues. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during PHASE I, fundraising efforts for the PHASE II- Final Master Plan shall begin under the direction of the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee as approved by the City Council, such that a comprehensive redesign and reconstruction of the downtown public parks without the Lee and Jackson statues, inclusive of construction documents, fabrication and installation of all new permanent plaques and memorials* or monuments is fully funded and realized. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the scope of a separate RFP for the PHASE II-Final Master Plan shall be developed in consultation with the aforementioned community and stakeholder groups, and issued immediately after a date certain for the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues has been secured either through the Courts or the Virginia General Assembly. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that sometime prior to PHASE II, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall meet 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, pending Virginia Court decisions and/or changes in the Virginia Code. *The actual design of a new memorial to Charlottesville’s enslaved population (and an as yet to be determined additional memorial in Emancipation Park) in keeping with the recommendations of the BRC, shall be determined by an independent process (including but not limited to a design competition) in PHASE II. (Resolution offered by Councilor Galvin, November 6, 2017) 3 This page intentionally left blank.