CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, July 2, 2018 2:45 p.m. Closed session as provided by Section 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code Second Floor Conference Room (Interviews; Legal Consultation; Boards & Commissions) 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting - CALL TO ORDER Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PROCLAMATIONS CITY MANAGER RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY MATTERS COMMUNITY MATTERS Public comment is provided for up to 16 speakers at the beginning of the meeting (limit 3 minutes per speaker.) Pre-registration is available for up to 8 spaces, and pre-registered speakers are announced by noon the day of the meeting. The number of speakers is unlimited at the end of the meeting. 1. CONSENT AGENDA*: (Items removed from consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda.) a. Minutes for June 18, 2018 b. APPROPRIATION: Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for repayment of Substantial Rehab loan – $30,113.28 (2nd of 2 readings) c. APPROPRIATION: Albemarle County Funds to the City’s Workforce Investment Fund for Non-City Resident Workforce Development Training (GO Driver) – $4,432.50 (2nd of 2 readings) d. APPROPRIATION: 2018-2019 Community Development Block Grant – $409,708.49 (2nd of 2 readings) e. APPROPRIATION: 2018-2019 HOME Funds – $125,966.49 (2nd of 2 readings) f. APPROPRIATION: Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program – $90,000 (2nd of 2 readings) g. APPROPRIATION: Human Services Fund Balance for F.Y. 2018 Expenses – $500,000 (2nd of 2 readings) h. RESOLUTION: Rivanna Quarterly Report (1st of 1 reading) i. RESOLUTION: Revision of the City’s 2005 Street Closing Policy (1st of 1 reading) j. RESOLUTION: Special Use Permit (SUP) for Multi-Family Residential Use and Reduced Front Setbacks at 0 Carlton Road (1st of 1 reading) k. RESOLUTION: Critical Slopes Waiver for 0 Carlton Rd. (1st of 1 reading) l. ORDINANCE: Easement to Century Link at Sugar Hollow Reservoir (2nd of 2 readings) 2. PUBLIC HEARING / Parking Modified Zone Amendments (1st of 2 readings) ORDINANCE*: 3. PUBLIC HEARING / Restaurants: Drive-through windows in Highway Corridor Zoning Text Amendment ORDINANCE*: (1st of 2 readings) 4. PUBLIC HEARING / Mixed Use Development Standards Zoning Text Amendment (1st of 2 readings) ORDINANCE*: 5. PUBLIC HEARING / Transfer for the Bypass Fire Station Project – $2,217,885 (1st of 1 reading) RESOLUTION*: 6. ORDINANCE*: Regulating Use of Explosives for Excavation and Demolition Activities (1st of 2 readings) 7. RESOLUTION*: 946 Grady Ave. (Dairy Central) (1st of 1 reading) 8. RESOLUTION*: Transfer to the Circuit Court Renovation & Expansion Project from CIP Contingency and Courthouse Security Funds – $857,000 (1st of 1 reading) 9. RESOLUTION*: Minority Business Task Force Update (continued on next page) 10. REPORT: Parks and Recreation Citizen Survey Results 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 public comment. Please follow these guidelines for public comment:  Each speaker has 3 minutes to speak. Please give your name and place of residence before beginning your remarks.  Please do not interrupt speakers, whether or not you agree with them. Speaking from the audience is not permitted without first being recognized by the Chair.  Please refrain from using obscenities.  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.  If you cannot follow these guidelines, you will be asked to leave City Council Chambers and will not be permitted to re-enter. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434) 970-3182. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Approval of Appropriations Staff Contacts: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Presenter: Stacy Pethia, Housing Program Coordinator Title: Appropriation of funds to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund for repayment of Substantial Rehab loan - $30,113.28.00 Background: On September 26, 1997 the City issued a Substantial Rehab loan of $30,113.28 to Willie and Shirley Morris. The funds were provided as zero-interest deferred payment loan with payment due upon sale, or other transference of the property prior. Mr. and Mrs. Morris recently sold the property and provided a check to the City in the full amount of the loan. Discussion: The loan satisfaction payment received from the Morris’ meets the terms of the loan agreement and the funds received need to be appropriated to the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) in order to be used for future projects or programs related to affordable housing. Community Engagement: There has been no direct community engagement on this issue, as the payment received from Mr. and Mrs. Morris was made to satisfy the terms of their September 26, 2997 substantial rehabilitation loan. Alignment with City Council Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this item aligns with the City Council Vision of ‘Quality Housing for All’ and with the Strategic Plan Goal 1.3 to “Increase affordable housing options.” Budgetary Impact: The loan repayment will increase the amount of available CAHF funds to $73,178.93 for the remainder of FY 2018. CAHF Balance as of 5/31/2018 $229,190.65 PHA DPA Program -$186,125.00 Loan Repayment – Willie & Shirley Morris $ 30,113.28 CAHF Balance after appropriation $ 73,178.93 Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the appropriation. Alternatives: There is no alternative for appropriation of the funds, as these funds must be returned to their original source. Attachments: N/A APPROPRIATION Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Substantial Rehab Loan Payoff – Willie and Shirley Morris $30,113.28 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funding from the payoff of the Willie and Shirley Morris Deed of Trust ($30,113.28); NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $30,113.28 be appropriated as follows: Revenues: $30,113.28 Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Code: 434675 Expenditures: $30,113.28 Fund: 426 Project: CP-084 G/L Code: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Approval of Appropriation Presenter: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Staff Contacts: Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Title: Appropriation of funding from Albemarle County for Non-City Resident Workforce Development Training (GO Driver) - $4,432.50 Background: In the fall of 2017, staff from Albemarle County Economic Development contacted the City of Charlottesville Office of Economic Development (OED) about partnering to allow non-City residents to participate in the City’s GO Driver workforce development program in an effort to train these individuals to become bus drivers for Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS). OED staff provided a proposal to the County for such training on a cost per participant basis. The OED ultimately trained three, non-City residents through the GO Driver program from February to March of 2018, thus resulting in a total training cost of $4,432.50 ($1,477.50 per person). The County has remitted payment to the OED for the training, and this needs to be appropriated to the Workforce Investment Fund (P-00385). Discussion: In 2014, the OED piloted the Growing Opportunities (GO) Driver jobs-driven workforce development training program in partnership with Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT). During the 160 hour, six-week training program, participants get a Class B Commercial Driver’s License Learner’s Permit, a Passenger Service & Security certificate, a Virginia Career Readiness Certificate, a CPR/First Aid certificate, and over 40 hours of workplace readiness and customer service training. Upon successful completion of the program, participants are then eligible for employment with CAT and/or City Pupil Transportation. Since 2014, the OED and CAT have graduated eight GO Driver cohorts, and 61 individuals have been placed into employment with local transit agencies as a result of their participation in the program. For the eighth GO Driver cohort, which took place from February to March of 2018, the OED partnered with Albemarle County to fund the participation of three, non-City residents in the GO Driver training program. All three individuals successfully completed the program and were hired by Albemarle County Public Schools as a school bus driver. The County and ACPS have expressed interest in wanting to partner again in the future to train non-City residents through the GO Driver program to become bus drivers for ACPS. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This effort supports City Council’s “Economic Sustainability” vision and aligns directly with the SAT’s Growing Opportunity report that was approved by City Council in 2013. It also contributes to the following goals and objectives in the City’s Strategic Plan: Goal 4: A Strong, Creative and Diversified Economy  Objective 4.1: Develop a quality workforce Goal 1: An Inclusive Community of Self-sufficient Residents  Objective 1.2: Prepare residents for the workforce It aligns with Chapter 3 on Economic Sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan, and more specifically Goal 6, which focuses on workforce development and being an effective partner in creating a well‐prepared and successful workforce. Community Engagement: Like practically all of the City’s workforce development efforts, its employment training programs are supported by numerous community agencies and organizations. For this particular initiative, the OED was able to partner with Albemarle County Economic Development and Albemarle County Public Schools for the first time. Budgetary Impact: None as this is a reimbursement for services already provided. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of the funds. Alternatives: If funds are not appropriated, the City will have to cover the cost of training for the four, non-City residents who participated in the GO Driver training program. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Funding from Albemarle County for Non-City Resident Workforce Development Training (GO Driver) $4,432.50 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has received funds from Albemarle County in the amount of $4,432.50; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to support workforce development training programs provided by the Office of Economic Development; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of $4,432.50 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $4,432.50 Fund: 425 WBS: P-00385 G/L: 451999 Expenditures - $4,432.50 Fund: 425 WBS: P-00385 G/L: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Appropriation and Approval Presenter: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Staff Contacts: Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator, NDS Title: Approval and Appropriation of CDBG & HOME Budget Allocations for FY 2018-2019 Background: This agenda item includes the revised Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) final budget allocation for FY 2018-2019 appropriation for the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds to be received by the City of Charlottesville from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Discussion: On May 21, 2018, City Council approved the estimated appropriation of the City’s CDBG funds for FY 2018-2019 totaling $389,291.49 and the City’s HOME funds totaling $99,844.45. No new match was to be appropriated to HOME projects due to a surplus of match from previous years that would be applied equally to all HOME projects. In addition to the budget, Council also approved any percent changes to the estimated amounts to be applied equally to all programs and no agency’s allocation would increase more than their initial funding request. After the appropriation for the estimated amounts was sent to Council, the City received the official allocation from HUD for the CDBG and HOME programs, which were greater than the estimated totals from the original appropriation. The City’s CDBG allocation has increased by $20,317 for a new total of $409,708.49, and the HOME allocation has increased by $26122.04 for a new total of $125,966.49. The details of where the changes will occur are shown in the below table. The new total amounts received by the City for these programs need to be appropriated prior to administering these funds. 1 Estimated Actually Additional CDBG Program Award Awarded Appropriation Priority Neighborhood - Belmont $ 200,000.00 $ 204,263.49 $ 4,263.49 Economic Development - CIC Scholarships 12,500.00 12,500.00 - Public Service - Literacy Volunteers 8,300.00 8,300.00 - Public Service - United Way 25,000.00 26,431.00 1,431.00 Public Service - TJACH 25,000.00 26,531.00 1,531.00 Housing - AHIP Homeowner Rehab 40,991.49 50,000.00 9,008.51 Administration & Planning 77,600.00 81,683.00 4,083.00 $ 389,391.49 $ 409,708.49 $ 20,317.00 CDBG Entitlement Amount 388,100.00 408,417.00 20,317.00 Reprogramming unused prior year amount 1,291.49 1,291.49 - $ 389,391.49 $ 409,708.49 $ 20,317.00 HOME Program Habitat - Downpayment Assistance $ 39,488.15 $ 39,502.79 $ 14.64 PHA - Downpayment Assistance 39,488.15 54,869.35 15,381.20 AHIP - Homeowner Rehab 20,868.15 31,594.35 10,726.20 $ 99,844.45 $ 125,966.49 $ 26,122.04 HOME Entitlement Amount $ 57,100.00 $ 78,001.63 $ 20,901.63 Required Match 14,280.00 19,500.41 5,220.41 Program Income from prior year 28,464.45 28,464.45 - $ 99,844.45 $ 125,966.49 $ 26,122.04 Community Engagement: A public hearing was held for the proposed CDBG and HOME FY 18-19 Action Plan on May 7, 2018. There were no comments provided by the public. Per the CDBG/HOME Citizen Participation Plan, there are no other community engagement efforts required as a result of the revised resolutions. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to have Economic Sustainability and Quality Housing Opportunities for All. The proposed action also aligns with the Strategic Plan at goal 1.3 which speaks to increasing affordable housing options. Budgetary Impact: There will be no new budgetary impact to the General Fund. Previously appropriated match funding is sufficient to meet the HOME requirements. 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the appropriations. Funds will not be available or eligible to be spent until HUD releases funds. Funds included in this budget will not be spent until HUD releases the entitlement after the Action Plan is approved. Alternatives: No alternatives are proposed. Attachments: 2018-2019 CDBG and HOME Budget (Revised) Appropriation Resolution for CDBG funds (Revised) Appropriation Resolution for HOME funds (Revised) 3 2018-2019 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS (REVISED) RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 1/16/18 and 1/26/18 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: 3/13/2018 ESTIMATED BUDGET APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: 5/21/2018 A. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Belmont $204,263.49 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Scholarships $12,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $12,500 C. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $8,300 B. United Way – Childcare Scholarships $26,431 C. TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $26,531 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $61,262 (15% EN) D. HOUSING PROJECTS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $50,000 HOUSING PROGRAMS TOTAL: $50,000* E. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $81,683 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $409,708.49 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $408,417 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $0.00 REPROGRAMMING: $1,291.49 * Funding includes reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2018-2019 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. Habitat – Down payment Assistance $39,502.79 B. PHA – Down payment Assistance $54,869.35 C. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $31,594.35 GRAND TOTAL: $125,966.49 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $78,001.63 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $22,906.59 REPROGRAMMING: $5,557.86 REMAINING LOCAL MATCH FROM PREVIOUS ALLOCATIONS: $19,500.41 All projects include EN available after program income applied and match surplus allocated from previous grant years APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE'S 2018-2019 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $409,708.49 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the 2018-2019 fiscal year in the total amount of $409,708.49 that includes new entitlement from HUD amounting to $408,417, and previous entitlement made available through reprogramming of $1,291.49. WHEREAS, City Council has received recommendations for the expenditure of funds from the CDBG Task Force, the SAT, the Belmont Priority Neighborhood Task Force (priorities to be determined at a later date) and the City Planning Commission; and has conducted a public hearing thereon as provided by law; WHEREAS, City Council previously appropriated the estimated Community Development Block Grant funding for the 2018 – 2019 fiscal year; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sums hereinafter set forth are hereby appropriated from funds received from the aforesaid grant to the following individual expenditure accounts in the Community Development Block Grant Fund for the respective purposes set forth; provided, however, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to transfer funds between and among such individual accounts as circumstances may require, to the extent permitted by applicable federal grant regulations. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD Belmont Priority Neighborhood $204,263.49 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Investment Collaborative Scholarships $12,500 PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAMS United Way – Childcare Scholarships $26,431 TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $26,531 Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $8,300 HOUSING PROJECTS AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $50,000 ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: Admin and Planning $81,683 TOTAL $409,708.49 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation supersedes the previous appropriation from May 21, 2018, and is conditioned upon the receipt of $408,417 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (sub-recipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE’S 2018-2019 HOME FUNDS $125,966.49 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville has been advised of the approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding for the 2018-2019 fiscal year; WHEREAS, the region is receiving an award for HOME funds for fiscal year 18-19 of which the City will receive $78,001.63 to be expended on affordable housing initiatives such as homeowner rehab and downpayment assistance. WHEREAS, it is a requirement of this grant that projects funded with HOME initiatives money be matched with local funding in varying degrees; WHEREAS, City Council previously appropriated the estimated HOME funding for the 2018 – 2019 fiscal year; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the local match for the above listed programs will be covered by the a surplus of match from previous appropriations from the Charlottesville Housing Fund (account CP-0084 in SAP system) in the amount of $19,500.41. Project totals also include previous entitlement made available through program income of $22,906.59. The total of the HUD money, program income, and the local match, equals $125,966.49 and will be distributed as shown below. PROJECTS HOME EN MATCH PI/REPROGRAMMING TOTAL Habitat for Humanity- $24,508.92 $6,002.93 $9,488.15 $40,000.00 DPA PHA-DPA $36,056.36 $9,076.24 $9,488.15 $54,620.75 AHIP-Homeowner $17,436.35 $4,421.24 $9,488.15 $31,345.74 Rehab Total $78,001.63 $19,500.41 28,464.45 $125,966.49 * includes Program Income which does not require local match. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation supersedes the previous appropriation from May 21, 2018, and is conditioned upon the receipt of $78,001.63 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The amounts so appropriated as grants to other public agencies and private non-profit, charitable organizations (subreceipients) are for the sole purpose stated. The City Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with those agencies and organizations as he may deem advisable to ensure that the grants are expended for the intended purposes, and in accordance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations; and The City Manager, the Directors of Finance or Neighborhood Development Services, and staff are authorized to establish administrative procedures and provide for mutual assistance in the execution of the programs. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Approval of Appropriation Presenter: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Management Specialist Staff Contacts: Riaan Anthony, Parks and Recreation Management Specialist Vic Garber, Parks and Recreation Division Manager Title: Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program - $90,000 Background: The City of Charlottesville, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has received approval for reimbursement of up to $90,000 from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program to provide free breakfast and lunch to children attending summer camp programs. Discussion: Charlottesville Parks and Recreation will operate six Summer Camp programs throughout the City of Charlottesville. These sites serve children in Pre K-9th grades, for six weeks during the summer, June 18-July 27. Extended camp will be offered for two weeks at two locations from July 30th – August 10th. Various activities are planned from 9:00am-4:00pm, Monday through Friday. The Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program provides free, nutritious breakfast and lunch for these children. Most of the children are served receive free or reduced meals during the school year. Over 1000 children were enrolled in Summer Camps last year. The $90,000 appropriation covers the cost of the food and administration of the summer food service program. The lunches are purchased through the City of Charlottesville School Food Service. The Parks and Recreation Department pays the City of Charlottesville Food Service for the meals provided and is then reimbursed by the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Programs. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: Approval of this agenda item aligns directly with Council’s vision for Charlottesville to be America’s Healthiest City and it contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan to be a safe, equitable, thriving, and beautiful community. Children will receive nutritious breakfast, lunch and/or dinner, hopefully replacing a meal that did not exist or providing a healthier balanced option for them. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund. The funds will be expensed and reimbursed to a Grants Fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds Alternatives: If money is not appropriated, the free breakfast and lunch program will not be offered to youth, most of whom receive free or reduced meals during the school year. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program $90,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Parks and Recreation, has received approval for reimbursement up to $90,000 from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program to provide free breakfast and lunch to children attending summer camp programs; and WHEREAS, the grant award covers the period from period June 18, 2018 through October 31, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, which the sum of $90,000, received from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $90,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900299 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures - $90,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900299 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $90,000 from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Approve Appropriation Presenter: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Staff Contacts: Kaki Dimock, Director, Human Services Ryan Davidson, Sr. Budget & Management Analysis, Budget Office Title: Appropriation of Human Services Fund Balance for F.Y. 2018 Expenses - $500,000 Background: The Department of Human Services is seeking approval to appropriate into the current fiscal year budget, $500,000 of the department’s existing fund balance, in order to cover expenses beyond what was initially approved as part of the Adopted F.Y. 2018 budget. Expenses in the department are higher than anticipated in the area of foster care payments. This is a result of a significant increase in the number of youth in foster care placed in Community Attention Foster Families through our regional collaboration with area departments of social services. These expenses are paid out by the department and reimbursed at a rate of 100% by Children’s Services Act (C.S.A.) funds. As is always the case, reimbursement for such expenses is delayed by as much as 60 days, resulting in the occasional need to access the fund balance. Discussion: Staff in the Department of Finance, Office of Budget Performance Management, and Human Services Department, discussed this issue to identify the recommended course of action, establishing the legitimate need for use of the fund balance and ensuring that no larger financial concern exists within the department’s operations. Through the collection of revenue from fee for service activities (from which the department generates 94% of its annual revenue), and through other savings in the department’s operational budget, the Human Services fund has over time accumulated a fund balance of approximately $1.9 million, which is available for usage by the department. Based on the nature of this fund, being roughly 94% dependent upon fee for service revenue, staff recommend that the target fund balance for this fund is to have at least 90 days of working capital in reserve. After the use of the $500,000 of fund balance for F.Y. 2018 expenses, and the budgeted transfer of $250,000 from this fund balance to the General Fund in F.Y. 2019, the Human Services fund balance will then be estimated to be at approximately that level of reserve. The use of the available fund balance requires approval of a supplemental appropriation by City Council. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The Department of Human Services has a direct impact on the strategic goals of #1: An inclusive community of self-sufficient residents and of #2: a healthy and safe city. The Community Attention Foster Families program particularly impacts #2.2: Meet the safety needs of victims and reduce the risk of re-occurrence/re-victimization. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: This has no financial impact on the General Fund. Impact is limited to the department’s existing fund balance, which is expected to only be temporary after the pending reimbursement for C.S.A. expenses are received. Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the use of $500,000 from the department’s fund balance in F.Y. 2018. Alternatives: N/A. Attachments: Appropriation APPROPRIATION Appropriation of Human Services Fund Balance for FY 2018 Expenses $500,000 NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the sum of up to $500,000 in department fund balance, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues - $500,000 $500,000 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 3413002000 G/L Account: 498011 Expenditures - $500,000 $100,000 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 3413002000 G/L Account: 519999 $500,000 Fund: 213 Cost Center: 3413002000 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Rivanna Solid Waste Authority 695 Moores Creek Lane Charlottesville, Virginia 22902‐9016 434.977.2970 • 434.293.8858 Fax www.rivanna.org MEMORANDUM TO: THE HONORABLE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL MAWYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RIVANNA WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SUBJECT: QUARTERLY UPDATE DATE: JULY 2, 2018 This quarterly update is to provide information on our drinking water, wastewater and solid waste projects currently in the planning, design or construction phases. A general overview of the current and upcoming Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) follows: 1. Water Treatment Plant Improvements Scope: Replace equipment which has reached end-of-service life at the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant, and increase water treatment capacity at the Observatory and Crozet Water Treatment Plants. Completion: 2017-2022 Cost: $34 million 2. Avon Street to Pantops Water Main Scope: Provide drinking water piping to improve water pressure in the urban water system including the Avon and Pantops water storage tanks. Completion: 2020-2022 Cost: $13 million 3. South Fork Rivanna to Ragged Mountain Reservoir Pipeline Right-of-Way Scope: Determine alignment and acquire right-of-way permits and easements for a nine mile long pipeline and pumping station to transfer raw water between the South Rivanna Reservoir and the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, as required by the Community Water Supply Plan. Completion: 2017-2021 Cost: $2.3 million 4. Rt. 29 Water Pumping Station and Piping Scope: Provide a water pumping station and two ground-level water storage tanks near the future intersection of Meeting Street and Airport Road. These water facilities will enhance our ability to meet growing water demands in the area generally north of Hollymead Town Center. Completion: 2021-2022 Cost: $2.3 million 5. Replace Ivy Transfer Station Scope: Provide an 11,600 sq. ft. municipal waste transfer station and demolish the existing transfer station. Completion: September 2017- September 2018 Cost: $3 million 6. Modifications to Beaver Creek Reservoir Dam Scope: Provide modifications to the dam to control the flow of water across the spillway during major storm events. Completion: 2021 – 2023 Cost: $20 million cc: RSWA Board of Directors RWSA Board of Directors 2 RESOLUTION Accepting the Rivanna Quarterly Update to City Council for July 2, 2018 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville that the Rivanna Quarterly Report to City Council, delivered via written report at the July 2, 2018, regular City Council meeting, is hereby accepted. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City’s 2005 Street Closing Policy Presenter: Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Title: Revision of the City’s 2005 Street Closing Policy Background: Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-2272 (within the State’s Subdivision Law) provides that a “paper” street or alley (i.e., an area depicted on a previously-recorded subdivision plat, but never actually constructed as a street/alley or accepted by the City) may be vacated by either of two methods: (1) a deed signed by all adjacent landowners, and also signed by the City, or (2) by ordinance adopted by City Council following notice and an opportunity for persons to appear before council to note objections to the proposed vacation. In 2005 City Council adopted a “Street Closing Policy” that authorized paper streets and alleys to be vacated by either procedure. (A copy of the 2005 Policy is attached). Discussion: Recently City Council has begun to question, as a matter of public policy and good land use practice, under what circumstances paper streets and alleys should be vacated. Council has requested that a review of the 2005 Street Closing Policy should be undertaken by staff, and an initial report brought back to Council. In the meantime, we have received input from members of City Council that, given the public interest in retaining the fabric of the “street grids” established within the City’s subdivisions, all applications seeking vacation of paper streets and alleys should be the subject of debate and consideration by City Council at a public meeting. It is within Council’s discretion to require this; however, in order to do so, it is necessary for City Council to amend its 2005 Policy to remove the provisions which allow “administrative” street closings through deeds signed by adjacent landowners. Attached is a Resolution that would amend the 2005 Street Closing Policy, to delete the procedure for “administrative” closings. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This review of the Street Closing Policy is associated with Council’s vision for A Connected Community: The City of Charlottesville is part of a comprehensive, regional transportation system that enables citizens of all ages and incomes to easily navigate our community. An efficient and convenient transit system supports mixed use development along our commercial corridors, while bike and pedestrian trail systems, sidewalks, and crosswalks enhance our residential neighborhoods. A regional network of connector roads helps to ensure that residential neighborhood streets remain safe and are not overburdened with cut-through traffic. Community Engagement: This matter is a policy matter for City Council, and the State Law that addresses the procedures available to Council do not require a public hearing by Council. Budgetary Impact: Adoption of this Resolution will have no significant impact on the City’s General Fund; it will slightly increase Council’s expenditures for newspaper notices of public hearings. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution. Alternatives: Council could choose to wait until it is ready to make a comprehensive review of the entire Street Closing Policy. If Council waits, staff will need to continue to accept applications for administrative approvals in accordance with the 2005 Policy. Attachments: Proposed Resolution 2005 Street Closing Policy RESOLUTION Revision to City Street Closing Policy BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the City’s Street Closing Policy, adopted on February 7, 2005, is hereby revised to eliminate Section (A) – Administrative Approval by City as an option under Part One of the Policy, so that all petitions for closing a street or alley shall be considered by City Council and approved by ordinance, in accordance with Virginia Code statutes. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Ordinance Adoption Presenter: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: SP17-00003 Special Use Permit (SUP) for Multi-Family Residential Use and Reduced Front Setbacks at 0 Carlton Road Background: Chris Henry of Stony Point Design/Build, LLC requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for multi-family residential use up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) per Z.O. Sec. 34-480 and a reduction of the minimum required front yard setback from 20-feet to 0-feet per Z.O. Sec. 34- 162(a) at 0 Carlton Road (Tax Map 57 Parcels 123.69, 123.701, 123.71 and Tax Map 61 Parcel 2.2). The subject property has street frontage on Carlton Road and Monticello Road. The full applicant package submitted for the March 12, 2018 Joint Public Hearing can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=60818 At the March 13, 2018 public hearing, the Planning Commission deferred recommendation on the request until the associated critical slope waiver request could be submitted by the applicant and brought forward for recommendation. The applicant provided the critical slope waiver request materials for the June 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. In addition to submitting a critical slope waiver request, the applicant submitted a modified site design to address concerns voiced at the March 13, 2018 public hearing. Per Virginia Code 15.2- 2285(C), appropriate changes can be made to an application after the joint public hearing of City Council and the Planning Commission before the application is before City Council. In this case, the revised application materials incorporate a number of public and Planning Commission comments that arose during the public hearing process. The request for multi-family residential use (up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA)) has not changed, and remains the substance of the proposal. The changes were presented to the Planning Commission at the June 12, 2018 meeting. An outline of modifications to the application subsequent to the March 13, 2018 public hearing is provided below in the Discussion section of this report. The full application package submitted 1 for the June 12, 2018 Planning Commission meeting can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61937 Discussion: Among the matters discussed by the Planning Commission at their March 13, 2018 meeting were the following:  The potential impacts to critical slopes, and a desire to see more information on the waiver request prior to making a recommendation.  The pedestrian experience on Monticello Road and Carlton Road due to the proposed modifications to the sidewalks and proposed reduced front yard setback.  The desire to see some setback of the buildings from the property line along Monticello Road and Carlton Road, but not the full 20-feet setback otherwise required by code.  The desire to see additional sidewalk width due to the potential of the development to be a destination with pedestrian patrons.  The appropriateness of the proposed massing and scale in relationship to the surrounding properties. The materials submitted for Planning Commission consideration at the June 12, 2018 meeting include the following modifications from the materials discussed at the March 13, 2018 Joint Public Hearing. No changes have been proposed regarding the site program of a three (3) story mixed-use building with bakery/café use on the first floor and multi-family dwelling units on the upper stories and a grouping of condominiums. No modifications to the parking lot design are proposed.  Pedestrian Experience and Front Setback: The updated preliminary site plan no longer proposes a street tree in the sidewalk zone on Monticello Road, and shows a sidewalk width of more than eight (8) feet. As shown in the street section graphics, a portion of the sidewalk will be located beneath a building overhang and on the subject properties, which will require a public access easement. The proposed sidewalk width is in line with recommendation for Local Streets (which follow standards for Neighborhood B streets) in the May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan). The updated preliminary site plan now proposes a five (5) foot sidewalk along Carlton Road, where previously a four (4) foot sidewalk was proposed. The proposed landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the road continues to be three (3) to four (4) feet in width. The proposed sidewalk and buffer widths are in line with the recommendation for Neighborhood A streets in the May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan). 2 The updated preliminary site plan now notes a four (4) to five (5) foot front stoop between the condominium units and the sidewalk. This is demonstrated in the street section graphic. The preliminary site plan notes the stoops are a variable height of no more than three (3) feet.  Building Height: The updated preliminary site plan now proposes a maximum height of 41.85 feet for the condominium units, where previously a 43 foot maximum was proposed. The updated preliminary site plan continues to propose 44.41 feet maximum height for the mixed-use building.  Bicycle Parking: The updated preliminary site plan now shows six (6) short-term bicycle parking spaces visible from Monticello Road in addition to six (6) long-term parking located within the stairway of the proposed mixed-use building. The proposed quantities exceed the minimum requirements of Section 34-881. However, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator has noted that short-term bicycle parking should be visible from the bakery/café entrance in the mixed-use building to be effective. Alignment with Council Strategic Plan: The project supports Goal 3 of City Council’s Strategic Plan through objective 3.1, engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation; objective 3.2, provide reliable and high quality infrastructure; and objective 3.3, provide a variety of transportation and mobility options. Community Engagement: City Council held a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission on March 13, 2018. Two members of the public spoke. One speaker noted no opposition to the proposed use but expressed concern that the critical slope waiver request was not available for review in conjunction with the SUP application. One representative from the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association noted the association’s appreciation of the applicant’s community engagement process and willingness to work with the community. Budgetary Impact: No direct budgetary impact is anticipated as a direct result of approving an SUP for the applicant’s parcels. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: 3 Mr. Lahendro moved to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit with the conditions recommended by staff: 1. No improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of a critical slope waiver/modification request, completion of right-of-way acquisition, approval of a final site plan, and approval of a permit authorizing land-disturbing activities pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 10-9. 2. A modified front yard minimum setback of zero (0) feet on Monticello Road shall be permitted. 3. A modified front yard minimum setback of zero (0) feet on Carlton Road shall be permitted. 4. The design, height, and other characteristics of the development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the preliminary site plan dated April 18, 2018 (Attachment A), building elevations provided May 23, 2018 (Attachment B), and street sections dated April 16, 2018 (Attachment D). Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with staff comments, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any change of the development that is inconsistent with the application shall require a modification of this SUP. These characteristics include: a. No building or structure on the subject properties shall exceed 44.41 feet in height, as measured by Z.O. Sec. 34-1100(a). No building shall contain more than three (3) stories above grade, as defined by Z.O. Sec. 34-1200. b. No building as defined by Section 34-1200 fronting on Carlton Road shall be located within four (4) feet of the property line. Front stoops are exempt from this requirement. c. Dedication of public right-of-way for the establishment of a Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus stop with concrete pad on Monticello Road, as shown, or a modified location and design on Monticello Road approved by the director of CAT or his designee. d. The subject properties shall be served by one (1) vehicular access point on Monticello Road, as shown, subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. e. Direct pedestrian access to the mixed use building shall be provided at the intersection of Carlton Road and Monticello Road. f. On-site parking shall be located behind the proposed buildings, as shown. g. Landscaped buffering adjacent to existing single-family residences on Carlton Road shall be installed, as shown. 5. The applicant shall provide pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the subject property, the dimension and final design of which is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. These improvements shall include: 4 a. Provide an improved pedestrian path on Carlton Road along the entire frontage of the subject property. This will consist of a sidewalk no less than five (5) feet in width, and a curbside buffer of no less than three (3) feet in width. b. Provide an improved pedestrian path on Monticello Road along the entire frontage of the subject property. This will consistent of a sidewalk no less than eight (8) feet in width where adjacent to a building. A public access and maintenance easement shall be provided for portions of the Monticello Road sidewalk located on the subject properties. c. Install high visibility crosswalks at the southern and eastern pedestrian crossings at the Carlton Road and Monticello Road intersection, as shown in the preliminary site plan dated April 18, 2018 (Attachment A). 6. All required parking per Z.O. Sec. 34-984 shall be provided on-site. 7. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. 8. The spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. 9. Conform to Z.O. Sec. 34-881(2) and Z.O. Sec. 34-881(3) -Bicycle Storage Facilities for multi-family dwellings and non-residential uses. Locate short-term bicycle parking to be visible from the bakery/café entrance in the mixed-use building at the corner of Carlton Road and Monticello Road. Ms. Keller seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application for an SUP for multi-family residential use and reduced front yard setbacks with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Lahendro, Ms. Keller, Ms. Green, and Mr. Solla-Yates voted to recommend approval, with Mr. Mitchell voting against recommendation of approval. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution for special use permit with conditions (as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, take action to approve the special use permit without conditions; (3) by motion, take action to deny special use permit; or (4) by motion, defer action consideration of the special use permit. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Updated Application Materials, dated April 16 through May 23, 2018 5 SP17‐00003 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND REDUCED FRONT SETBACKS AT ZERO (0) CARLTON ROAD WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-480 landowner Stony Point Design/Build, LLC (“Applicant”), has requested a special use permit for property having an address of zero (0) Carlton Road, further identified on City Tax Map 57 as parcels 123.69, 123.70, 123.71 and on City Tax Map 61 as Parcel 2.2, all such parcels, collectively, having an area of approximately 0.623 acres or 27,138 square feet (“Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the requested special use permit is to allow multifamily dwellings pursuant to City Code §34-480; and a reduction of the front yard requirements applicable to the Subject Property; in order to facilitate a specific development described in the materials accompanying City application number SP17-00003 (the proposed “Development”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned “M-I” (Manufacturing-Industrial), and pursuant to §34-480, multifamily dwellings are allowable by special use permit; pursuant to City Code §34-162, the requested modification of applicable front yard requirements is allowable in connection with the granting of a special use permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the original application materials dated April 16 through May 23, 2018, and the City’s Staff Report pertaining thereto, and following a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on March 13, 2018, the Commission voted to recommend that City Council approve the requested Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the comments received during the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the Staff Report, as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and based on the representations, information, and materials included within Applicant's application materials, this Council finds and determines that granting the requested special use permit is appropriate, subject to certain reasonable conditions; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia THAT: 1. Specific Development—a Special Use Permit is hereby granted to authorize the following Development on the Subject Property: Establishment of a three-story mixed use building (maximum building height 44.41 feet), which shall be used and occupied as follows: a bakery/café on the first floor and one- bedroom dwelling units used for residential occupancy within all other building stories; and establishment of additional multifamily dwellings (maximum building height 41.85 feet, for each building; each dwelling unit to contain two bedrooms) within a condominium regime. No building shall exceed three (3) stories above grade. Residential Page 1 of 3 SP17‐00003 density, within the total area of the Subject Property, shall not exceed 21 dwelling units per acre. The required minimum front yard within the Development shall be zero (0) feet on Monticello Road, and zero (0) feet on Carlton Road. 2. No land disturbing permit, and no building or other permit to authorize construction of any improvements, shall be granted prior to: (i) city council’s approval of a critical slope waiver in accordance with City Code §34-1120; (ii) city council’s approval of a sale of public right- of-way to the landowner, as necessary to allow the construction and other improvements depicted within the Application materials; (iii) approval of a final stormwater management plan and a final erosion and sediment control plan by the City’s agent; and (iv) approval of a final site plan by the city’s site plan agent. 3. The design, height, and other characteristics of the Development shall remain the same, in all material aspects, as described within the preliminary site plan dated April 18, 2018 (Attachment A), building elevations provided May 23, 2018 (Attachment B), and street sections dated April 16, 2018 (Attachment D). Except as the characteristics of the Development may subsequently be modified to comply with (i) any of these SUP Conditions, and/or (ii) City zoning regulations not modified by this Special Use Permit: any material change of the Development as represented within the application materials shall require a modification of this SUP. Without limiting the foregoing, the following shall be deemed material aspects of the Development that may not be modified by any administrative approval: a. No building fronting on Carlton Road shall be located within four (4) feet of the property line. Front stoops are exempt from this requirement. b. Landowner shall dedicate land for public right-of-way, establishment of a Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) bus stop with concrete pad on Monticello Road, or a modified location and design on Monticello Road approved by the director of CAT or his designee. c. The Subject Property shall be served by a single (1) vehicular access point on Monticello Road, as shown, subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. d. Direct pedestrian access to the mixed use building shall be provided at the intersection of Carlton Road and Monticello Road. e. All on-site parking shall be located behind the buildings on the Subject Property. f. Landscaped buffering shall be installed adjacent to existing single-family residences on Carlton Road, as depicted within the materials submitted with the Application. 4. The applicant shall provide pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the subject property, the dimension and final design of which is subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. These improvements shall include: Page 2 of 3 SP17‐00003 a. an improved pedestrian path on Carlton Road along the entire frontage of the subject property. This will consist of a sidewalk no less than five (5) feet in width, and a curbside buffer of no less than three (3) feet in width; b. an improved pedestrian path on Monticello Road along the entire frontage of the subject property, consisting of a sidewalk no less than eight (8) feet in width where adjacent to any building. The landowner shall grant to the City a public access easement and maintenance agreement, for portions of the Monticello Road sidewalk located within the Subject Property; and c. installation of high visibility crosswalks at the southern and eastern pedestrian crossings at the Carlton Road and Monticello Road intersection, as depicted within the preliminary site plan dated April 18, 2018 submitted with the Application. 5. All parking required by the City’s zoning ordinance shall be provided on-site. 6. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. The spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one- half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. 7. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided for each multifamily dwelling and non-residential use, of such type(s), and in such number(s) as will meet the specifications within City Code Sec. 34-881(2) and City Code Sec. 34-881(3) -Bicycle Storage Facilities. Short-term bicycle parking shall be located so as to be visible from the bakery/café entrance in the mixed-use building at the corner of Carlton Road and Monticello Road. Page 3 of 3 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Ø Carlton LEGEND TAX MAP 57, PARCELS 123.69, 123.701, 123.71, EXIST NEW DESCRIPTION & TAX MAP 61, PARCEL 2.2 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=500' OWNER/DEVELOPER SIGNS FIRE MARSHAL'S NOTES ZONING LIGHTING LEGAL REFERENCE PHASING SITE ALTH OF WE V W ON E IR UTILITY MARKINGS I C OMM GI BENCHMARK V NI A Lic.R E JUSTIN M. SHIMP No. 45183 R R PR SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPO FOF E S S IONAL EE O N GI EN MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS SHEET INDEX SHEET C1 - COVER SHEET SHEET C2 - EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION PLAN SHEET C3 - SITE PLAN SHEET C4 - ROW PLAN COVER SHEET SHEET C5 - UTILITY RELOCATION SHEET C6 - SITE UTILITY BUILDING HEIGHT SHEET C7 - GRADING PLAN SHEET C8 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET C9 - LIGHTING PLAN SHEET C10 - DETAILS SETBACKS PARKING SCHEDULE NOTES FIRE FLOW EXISTING USE CRITICAL SLOPES PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPOSED USE FLOOD ZONE Ø Carlton CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA WATER & SANITARY SERVICES LAND USE SCHEDULE WATER & SANITARY DEMANDS ITE TRIP GENERATION ELECTRIC / TELEPHONE / CABLE TV LAND DISTURBANCE STORMWATER COMPLIANCE CITY PERMITS BMP TABLE AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE SOILS LEGEND O PR C OMM O ON FE R F SS PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND Lic.R DEMOLITION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E IONAL E ALTH OF V ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT No. 45183 I V NG Ø Carlton IN IR E JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W 11.9' O PR C OMM ON FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SS WE I R O ROW PLAN SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. R F NAL E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Lic. No. 45183 V NG V Ø Carlton IN I IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI E NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W O PR C OMM O ON FE R PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WE SITE PLAN Lic. R SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. NAL E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V No. 45183 I V Ø Carlton 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 FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SS WE I R O UTILITY RELOCATION SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. R F NAL E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Lic. No. 45183 V NG V Ø Carlton IN I IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI E NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S W W W W W S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O PR C OMM ON FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SS WE I R O SITE UTILITY PLAN SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. R F NAL E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Lic. No. 45183 V NG V Ø Carlton IN I IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI E NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W · · CRITICAL SLOPE 74 80 84 88 94 96 92 94 W W W W 78 W W W W 82 90 W W W W W S S S S W W W W W S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W O PR C OMM ON FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SS WE I R O GRADING PLAN SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. R F NAL E E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT Lic. No. 45183 V NG V Ø Carlton IN I IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE R GI E NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. W W W W W W W W ALTH OF WE V W ON IR E C OMM I GI V NI A W W W W W E JUSTIN M. SHIMP Lic. R No. 45183 R R PR EE OFE O F S S IO E NGIN NAL W W W W W LANDSCAPE PLAN S S W W W W W S S PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR W W W W W Ø Carlton CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA S S W W W W W S S 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 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 ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.0 C-1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 C-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.8 2.5 3.6 5.7 6.5 ALTH OF WE V W ON IR E C OMM I GI V NI A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.8 2.8 4.6 7.8 11.0 B-1 Lic. R E JUSTIN M. SHIMP No. 45183 R R PR EE OFE O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.0 3.0 1.5 1.2 1.7 2.6 4.3 5.9 5.4 F S S IO E NGIN NAL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 4.3 5.2 4.0 2.1 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.2 8.4 10.4 8.5 4.8 2.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 LIGHTING PLAN 9.7 5.2 3.0 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 9.4 21.1 A-211.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 9.6 21.2 14.9 16.3 7.7 4.0 1.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 12.8 10.3 11.2 7.7 3.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.3 5.1 5.0 5.8 5.5 6.2 4.8 3.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 3.4 8.2 10.5 10.5 10.6 9.3 4.7 1.0 PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A-1 Ø Carlton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.1 9.7 17.3 10.0 19.0 11.8 4.6 0.5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.5 10.0 19.3 13.8 4.5 1.3 0.1 Schedule Symbol Label Quantity Manufactur er Catalog Number Description Lamp Number Lamps Filename Wattage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 2 PHILIPS LED 1 GARDCO A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 PHILIPS LED 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B GARDCO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 LUMEC LED 1 C STATISTICS Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Site Area 1.9 fc 21.2 fc 0.0 fc N/A N/A TREATED WOOD GATES FINISH TO MATCH BLDGS BRICK 14'-0" 10'-8" 8" 10" 12'-0" 13'-4" 10'-8" 8" 18'-4" 8" 5'-6" 8" 5'-0" 8" 6'-0" 4'-8" 10'-8" O PR C OMM ON FE O PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WE R SITE DETAILS R SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. E ALTH OF ENGINEERING - LAND PLANNING - PROJECT MANAGEMENT V Lic. No. 45183 V F S S IONAL E NG I Ø Carlton IN IR JUSTIN M. SHIMP EE E R GI NI A CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA W 9 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Ordinance Adoption Presenter: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Carrie Rainey, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: Critical Slope Waiver Request at 0 Carlton Road Background: Chris Henry of Stony Point Design/Build, LLC requests a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for the construction of a mixed-use building, multi-family dwelling units, a parking lot, and related improvements at 0 Carlton Road (Tax Map 57 Parcels 123.69, 123.701, 123.71 and Tax Map 61 Parcel 2.2). The subject property has street frontage on Carlton Road and Monticello Road. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 0.319acres/51% percent of the project site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. See City Code Sec. 34- 1120(b)(2). The Planning Commission discussed the critical slope waiver request at the June 12, 2018 meeting in conjunction with modifications to the Special Use Permit (SUP) application for the subject properties, for which a Joint Public Hearing was held on March 13, 2018. The full critical slope waiver request application package and updated SUP application package can be viewed at: http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61937 Discussion: Per Sec. 34-1120(b)(6)(3), City Council (in granting a modification or waiver) may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: large stand of trees, rock outcroppings and 1 slopes greater than 60%. The following information is relevant to the evaluation of this request:  Large stands of trees: The majority of the site is wooded. Critical slopes comprise approximately one-half (1/2) of the site.  Rock outcroppings: None.  Slopes greater than 60%: 2,944 SF (21%) of the total critical slopes on site are greater than 60%. 1,663 SF of critical slopes great than 60% are proposed to be disturbed, accounting for 16% of the critical slope disturbance. See Attachment 2 for location of slopes greater than 60%.  Waterway within 200 feet: A tributary stream of Moore’s Creek immediately below the proposed project site.  Location of other areas of the Property, outside critical slopes areas, that fit the definition of a “building site” and could accommodate this proposed development: The majority of the proposed building footprints are located outside of the critical slopes areas. The proposed development, as shown with surface parking, could not be accommodated outside of critical slope areas. However, a development of similar use and residential density could potentially be accommodated outside of critical slope areas with a different site design. Please note, the site layout of the currently proposed development is dependent on approval of the previously noted SUP application, including requested reduced setbacks per Section 34-162, by City Council. Among the matters discussed by the Planning Commission at their June 12, 2018 meeting were the following:  The previous request by the Planning Commission to provide additional space in front of the proposed buildings, and the resulting impacts to the critical slopes.  The proposed removal of existing trees and the retention of trees on the southern portion of the subject properties.  The impact of the proposed sidewalk widening on Monticello Road on the disturbance to critical slopes.  The grading of Monticello Road at the time of road construction and the potential resulting impact to the slopes on the subject property today.  The proposed retaining walls in the critical slope area and the appearance of the walls.  The potential to acquire local nutrient credits specific to Moore’s Creek. 2 Alignment with Council Strategic Plan: The project supports Goal 3 of City Council’s Strategic Plan through objective 3.1, engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation; objective 3.2, provide reliable and high quality infrastructure; and objective 3.3, provide a variety of transportation and mobility options. Community Engagement: Property owners within 500-feet of the subject properties were notified of the Planning Commission’s June 12, 2018 meeting, wherein the critical slopes waiver request would be discussed and a recommendation made, per Section 34-1220(b)(6)(b). No members of the public spoke regarding the critical slope waiver request at the meeting. Budgetary Impact: No direct budgetary impact is anticipated as a direct result of approving an SUP for the applicant’s parcels. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: Ms. Keller moved to recommend approval of this application for a critical slope waiver with the conditions recommended by staff on the basis that the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(i) and due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(ii). Mr. Lahendro seconded the motion. The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the application for a critical slope waiver with the conditions recommended by staff: 1. City Council require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to the undisturbed critical slope areas, tributary stream, and adjacent properties during land disturbance activities, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(a-c). Staff recommends City Council condition the use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing to ensure adequate protection of the aforementioned items, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 2. City Council require immediate installation of permanent stabilization measures in lieu of temporary measures at the base of the proposed retaining walls within the 3 areas of critical slope disturbance to ensure rapid stabilization of the slope to mitigate the potential impacts of erosion on the tributary stream and adjacent properties, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval.. Permeant stabilization may include the following measures from the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook: permanent seeding per Section 3.2, sodding per Section 3.3, or groundcover establishment per Section 3.37. Temporary soil stabilization through blankets or matting per Section 3.36 should be required to ensure the chosen stabilization measure does not erode prior to establishment. 3. City Council require an increase of required stormwater detention of 10% beyond the minimum requirement in order to mitigate potential stormwater impacts to the tributary stream and adjacent properties, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(b-c), to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 4. City Council require additional habitat redevelopment in order to mitigate potential impacts to existing wildlife habitat per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(f). Staff recommends City Council condition the installation of additional species of herbaceous and shrub plantings in the southwestern portion of the critical slope area proposed to be disturbed (south of the proposed retaining wall and west of the proposed riprap outfall area). Mr. Lahendro, Ms. Keller, Ms. Green, and Mr. Solla-Yates voted to recommend approval, with Mr. Mitchell voting against recommendation of approval. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution for the critical slope waiver with conditions (as recommended by the Planning Commission); (2) by motion, take action to approve the critical slope waiver without conditions; (3) by motion, take action to deny the critical slope waiver; or (4) by motion, defer action consideration of the critical slope waiver. Attachments: A. Proposed Resolution B. Critical Slope Waiver Request Application and Exhibits, dated March 16, 2018 through April 18, 2018 4 RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CRITICAL SLOPES PROVISIONS PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 34-1120(B)(6) FOR 0 CARLTON ROAD WHEREAS, Stony Point Design/Build, LLC, Applicant and owner of property designated on City Tax Map 57 as Parcels 1 2 3 . 6 9 , 1 2 3 . 7 0 a n d 1 2 3 . 7 1 , a n d T a x M a p 6 1 , P a r c e l 2 . 2 , consisting of approximately 0.623 acres or 27,138 square feet, and addressed as 0 Carlton Road (the "Property"), seeks a waiver of the critical slopes requirements of City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6) to allow for construction of a mixed-use development containing a mixed-use building, a multifamily dwelling, a parking lot, and related improvements on the Property (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this request at their regular meeting on June 12, 2018, and recommended approval of the request for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(6), subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the information and materials provided by the applicant, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council finds and determines pursuant to City Code Sec. 34- l 120(b)(6)(d)(i) that the benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slopes in connection with the Project outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slopes; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the request by Stony Point Design/Build, LLC for a waiver of the critical slopes requirements for the above-described Project to be developed on the Property, is hereby granted, conditioned upon the following: 1. Require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to the undisturbed critical slope areas, tributary stream, and adjacent properties during land disturbance activities, per Section 34- 1120(b)(1)(a-c); use of super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing to ensure adequate protection of the aforementioned items, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 2. Immediate installation of permanent stabilization measures in lieu of temporary measures at the base of the proposed retaining walls within the areas of critical slope disturbance to ensure rapid stabilization of the slope to mitigate the potential impacts of erosion on the tributary stream and adjacent properties, to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. Permanent stabilization may include the following measures from the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook: permanent seeding per Section 3.2, sodding per Section 3.3, or groundcover establishment per Section 3.37. Temporary soil stabilization through blankets or matting per Section 3.36 is required to ensure the chosen stabilization measure does not erode prior to establishment. 3. An increase of required stormwater detention of 10% beyond the minimum requirement in order to mitigate potential stormwater impacts to the tributary stream and adjacent properties, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(b-c), to be detailed on the site plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final site plan approval. 4. Additional habitat redevelopment in order to mitigate potential impacts to existing wildlife habitat per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(f); and the installation of additional species of herbaceous and shrub plantings in the southwestern portion of the critical slope area proposed to be disturbed (south of the proposed retaining wall and west of the proposed riprap outfall area). .. Critical Slopes Waiver Application for City of Charlottesville Applicant: Shimp Engineering P.C. Property Owner: Stony Point Design/Build, LLC Type of Development (please check one): _ _Redevelopment x_New Development Project Description: What are you proposing to do on this site? Mixed use building, with a commercial lower floor and eight apartments above. Four condominiums attached to mixed use building. Existing Conditions: Undeveloped and overgrown Total Site Area: .623 AC Zoning (if applying for rezoning-please note existing and intended change): Existing: Light Industrial (LI) Proposed: Mixed Use Percentage of Area greater than or equal to 25% slopes: (critical slopes make up .319 acres of the site' s .623acres, or_M_% of the site area.) Review ofModification of Section 34-ll20b to allow activity on critical slopes. Critical Slope Ordinance effective January 17, 2006. This application should be used to explain how the proposed project meets some or all of the requirements as described in Section 34-1120b.5. Modification or waiver. This application will help the Engineering Department make their recommendation for approval or denial to the Planning Commission. **Please see attached gyidelines for suggestions to folfill each requirement. The planning commission may grant a modification or waiver, upon making one or more of the following findings: Requirement #1: That a strict application of requirements would not help to achieve the goals of the critical slope restrictions. For each applicable pmposelintent (la-lg) provide j~stification below. 1a. To protect and conserve steep hillsides. As much hillside is being conserved as possible considering size of lot and development. Much of the southern end of the site will be open space to reduce further slope disturbance. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: June 18, 2018 Action Required: Public Hearing & Approval of Ordinance Presenter: Brian Daly, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Chris Gensic, Dept. of Parks and Recreation Title: CenturyLink Easement – Sugar Hollow Reservoir Background: The City, as the owner of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir property at 6797 Sugar Hollow Road, has been requested to approve an easement to Century Link to allow installation of utilities for improved fiber optic service to the dam control station at the Sugar Hollow Dam. Discussion: The intent of this easement is to place 3 telephone poles on the southwest side of Sugar Hollow Road for placement of approximately 275 feet of aerial fiber optic cable to serve the Reservoir with Ethernet internet services. This Ethernet service will allow the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) to better control the capacity and spillage, among other critical monitoring that is not achievable with today’s current T1 solution provided by CenturyLink Century Link is hoping to be able to set the poles in areas with little to no rock within the proposed easement, but there are chances they will have to drill thru rock to set the 2-3 poles. Century Link previously attempted to bury cable within the VDOT prescriptive easement, but was unsuccessful. With this easement, Century Link can attempt to place the poles farther from the prescriptive easement. Currently, a pole at the dam next to the parking area exists with CenturyLink and Dominion services currently attached. This pole will remain and have the fiber optic attached. The line will then travel buried into the RWSA room within the dam. The proposed path of aerial cable is approximately 10 feet from the edge of pavement, and is not the same pole line that Dominion Energy operates to serve customers in this area. Charlottesville Parks and Recreation and RWSA staff have reviewed the proposed easement and survey and have no concerns with providing the easement. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s Green City Vision and Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for a Healthy and Safe Community. Community Engagement: There has not been direct community engagement about this proposal. Budgetary Impact: Approval of the easement will not have any budget impact to the City or RWSA. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the easement to Century Link. Alternatives: If the easement is not approved, the fiber optic services to the dam will not be improved as requested by RWSA. Attachments: Request for Easement with Easement Agreement and Sketch Proposed Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO CENTURYLINK TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF THREE (3) UTILITY POLES ON CITY PROPERTY AT SUGAR HOLLOW RESERVOIR WHEREAS, Central Telephone Company of Virginia, d/b/a CenturyLink, has requested this Council to grant an easement across property owned by the City of Charlottesville in Albemarle County, known as the Sugar Hollow Reservoir (Albemarle Tax Map Parcel No. 02500-00-00-00700), as identified within an Easement Agreement and accompanying Plat submitted by CenturyLink, for the installation and maintenance of utility poles, lines and equipment; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the easement is to install utility poles on the southwest side of Sugar Hollow Road for placement of aerial fiberoptic cable to serve the Reservoir with Ethernet internet services, allowing the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to better control and manage critical monitoring of the Reservoir; and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, this City Council conducted a public hearing on the requested easement, pursuant to Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-1800(B), after proper publication of legal notice of the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Easement Agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, granting the above-described easement to CenturyLink for enhanced internet service to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority at Sugar Hollow Reservoir. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment Presenter: Brenda Kelley, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Staff Contacts: Brenda Kelley, AICP, Redevelopment Manager, City Manager’s Office Missy Creasy, AICP, Assistant Director, Neighborhood Development Services Title: ZM18-03-01 - Parking Modified Zone Amendments Background: At the March 5, 2018 City Council meeting, a zoning map amendment was initiated for consideration to include within the Parking Modified Zone referenced in City Code section 34- 971(e)(3) the following locations: - The site of Friendship Court (Tax Map Parcel ID number: 280112000; 400-426 Garrett Street); and - The site of Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) Crescent Halls (Tax Map Parcel ID number: 280218000; 500 1st Street S); and - The site of Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) Avon/Levy site (Tax Map Parcel ID numbers: 580115000 and 580114000; 405 Levy Avenue and 405 Avon Street); and - The site of Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) 6th Street site (Tax Map Parcel ID number: 270019000; 715 6th Street SE) During discussions on redevelopment with Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA; Friendship Court) and Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), both organizations have represented that they want and need to build the necessary parking to meet their respective future demands, but neither organization wants to build more than is necessary. The costs of parking construction, especially in structured parking, has been identified as an overly burdensome cost that will weigh on each organizations’ ability to achieve the desired additional affordable housing during redevelopment. The objective of this request is to reduce the on-site parking requirements to provide each organization the flexibility they need to meet parking demand, plan well and reduce overall costs 1 of redevelopment in order to construct more affordable housing units on Friendship Court, and the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (CRHA) Crescent Halls site, Avon/Levy site and 6th Street site. The City’s Parking Modified Zone is established to provide some flexibility to specified parking requirements in an urban development area as shown on the City of Charlottesville Zoning Map, and as pursuant to Sec. 34-971(e)(3), (4) and (5). Please note: Approval of this request will not require that the property owners construct less parking; it simply provides the flexibility of the owners to plan for and build less parking, depending on their parking demand and needs. Discussion: Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendment to revise the boundary to include the sites of Friendship Court and CRHA’s Crescent Halls, Avon/Levy and 6th Street based on the following:  Amending the Parking Modified Zone boundary to include the subject properties is a strategic and good zoning practice to provide flexibility and options for the property owners for redevelopment of existing public and subsidized housing.  Including these properties in the Parking Modified Zone may allow for the development of less required, costly parking, therefore helping to provide for more affordable housing.  Including these properties in the Parking Modified Zone may allow for the development of less required, costly parking, therefore possibly helping to provide for more on-site green space.  These properties are in an urban area and are close to employment centers and convenient to neighborhood amenities and public transportation service. Planning Commission Among the matters discussed by the Planning Commission at their June 12, 2018 meeting were the following:  Whether the proposed zoning map amendment may create an on-street parking burden on the surrounding community.  Whether PHAR was involved and supportive of this request. Some Commissioners discussed their desire that PHAR support the request. 2 Alignment with City Council’s Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The proposed zoning map amendment aligns with the City Council Vision of Quality Housing Opportunities for All and Strategic Plan, Goal 1.3, “Increase affordable housing options.” Community Engagement: Specific community engagement information is provided in the Planning Commission report. Themes from this engagement include public meetings held by Piedmont Housing Alliance and Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority informing the public of the application. The following public comments were received subsequent to the public notice of Planning Commission item ZM18-03-01:  1 letter offering support from Piedmont Housing Alliance guaranteeing that the Advisory Committee is focused on meeting the need of parking while also not wasting limited, vital resources on unnecessary parking; matching the parking with other resident priorities – well-planned open and green spaces as well as ample more affordable housing onsite  1 email regarding concern that there was not sufficient public notice – NDS staff clarified the state law requirements regarding public notice  3 emails voicing opposition to the request – primary concerns are losing parking under the Belmont Bridge, along old Avon Street, in the Water Street garage and with the building intended to house the city market; many homes in the area do not have adequate off-street parking; neighborhood parking already experiencing adverse parking effects due to the development and popularity of the downtown and IX Art Park areas; rarely is available parking on Monticello Avenue or Garrett Street no matter the time of day; Sixth Street is fully parked up from 7:30am to 5:30pm on weekdays; survey of the area bounded by Avon Street, 6th Street, Monticello Avenue and Garrett Street shows that approximately 80% of the residents rely on street parking; residents of Friendship Court and Crescent Halls will suffer without adequate parking for the commercial units, the delivery vehicles, guest parking and personal parking spaces; the downtown area cannot afford to lose any more parking and be able to survive. In addition, there was a concern raised by one member from the public during public comment at the Planning Commission meeting stating the neighborhood is receiving pressure on parking from downtown Belmont restaurant district, Belmont Bridge construction and downtown market; and regarding night time restricted on-street parking adjacent to Friendship Court. Follow up - Following a site visit to verify, the only restrictions to on-street parking along the four streets adjacent to Friendship Court are No Parking areas due to curb cuts or proximity to intersections (there are no night time restrictions). 3 Budgetary Impact: There is no budgetary impact. Recommendation: The Planning Commission took the following action: Mr. Lahendro moved to recommend the city approval of this petition to amend the zoning map to extend the boundaries of the Parking Modified Zone to include only the property of Friendship Court (400-426 Garrett Street – Tax Map Parcel ID number: 280112000) on the basis that the rezoning would serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The Commission voted 5-2 (Dowell, Mitchell) to recommend approval of the motion. Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached Ordinance (granting the zoning map amendment); (2) by motion, request changes to the attached Ordinance, and then approve the zoning map amendment in accordance with the amended Ordinance; (3) by motion, deny the requested zoning map amendment. Attachment: (1) Proposed Ordinance approving a Zoning Map Amendment (2) Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments, June 12, 2018 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=62029 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO INCLUDE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES IN THE PARKING MODIFIED ZONE WHEREAS, by Resolution approved on March 18, 2018, City Council initiated a Zoning Map amendment proposing to add four (4) additional areas to the Parking Modified Zone referenced in City Code Sec. 34-971(e)(3), hereinafter the “Map Amendment”; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Map Amendment and recommended that only Friendship Court be added to the Parking Modified Zone; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed Map Amendment was held by City Council on July 2, 2018, after notice to the public as required by law; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED that the Charlottesville City Council hereby designates the following properties to be included in the Parking Modified Zone, and amends the most recently approved Official Zoning Map accordingly: 1. Friendship Court (Tax Map Parcel 280112000) 2. Crescent Halls (Tax Map Parcel 280218000) 3. 405 Levy Avenue and 405 Avon Street (Tax Map Parcel 580115000 and 580114000) 4. CRHA property at 6th Street, S.E. and Monticello Avenue (Tax Map Parcel 270019000) 5 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment Presenter: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contacts: Heather Newmyer, City Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: ZT18-04-01 – Restaurants: Drive-through windows in Highway Corridor Background: At the April 16, 2018 City Council meeting, a zoning text amendment was initiated for consideration of allowing restaurants with drive-through windows to be allowed by special use permit in the Highway Corridor (HW) Mixed Use District. The request was brought to staff by Ashley Davies of Williams Mullen Law Firm on behalf of Alan Taylor, Riverbend Development, who is the applicant for 1801 Hydraulic (K-Mart site) redevelopment project titled “Hillsdale Place.” Project Description: The current final site plan application is under administrative review by City staff and includes Tax Map 41B Parcels 1 and 2 with road frontage on Hydraulic Road, Seminole Trail (Route 29), Hillsdale Drive and India Road. The site plan proposes i) to reduce existing buildings on-site (held by K-Mart and Gold’s Gym currently) from 121,197 SF to 77,000 SF in preparation for new retail tenants and ii) provide parking, utility and landscape improvements on- site. The Subject Property is zoned HW, EC (Highway Corridor District, Entrance Corridor Overlay (Note: The site received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) on December 15, 2017). The general usage specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Subject Property is Mixed Use. While the current final site plan proposes only renovations to the existing building on-site, Riverbend Development has indicated the desire to include in their future redevelopment plans a restaurant with a drive-through window, which currently is not allowed within the HW District. 1 Please note: While the request was made on behalf of one developer, this consideration is for the entirety of the HW District throughout the City; and, should the ZTA be approved, any developer who wishes to include a restaurant with a drive-through window as a use on a property within the HW District would require a special use permit be approved by City Council prior to the use being allowed on said property. Standard of Review Per Sec. 34-42(c), Planning Commission is to make a recommendation on an initiated amendment to the zoning ordinance within 100 days to City Council. Planning Commission makes their recommendation based off of the following factors: (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. Per Sec. 34-43, City Council is to hold at least one (1) public hearing prior to acting on any proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance. Relevant Code Sections §34-1200: The restaurant definition under §34-1200 includes “fast food restaurant” which is one at which patrons order and receive food orders at a counter or window for consumption either on or off-premises. §34-157: When considering an application for a special use permit, there is a higher level of review that is conducted by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council as opposed to when a use is allowed by-right. Within Sec. 34-157, there is a list of factors that are considered prior to approving or denying such request. These factors include: • Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood • Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city’s comprehensive plan • Whether the proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations 2 • 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 (then the section goes onto list potential adverse impacts such as traffic, noise, lighting, etc.) • Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district which it will be placed • 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 • 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. Proposed Zoning Text Change Revise the Mixed Use (§34-796) matrix as follows: • Place an “S”, which indicates special use permit required, in the row labeled “Drive- through windows” under the heading “Restaurants:” located in the Non-residential: General and Misc. Commercial section, under the HW zoning district column. Discussion: Overview of Staff Analysis Please see the staff report prepared for the June 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting (Attachment 2) for more information. Staff recommended approval of the proposed zoning text amendment to allow for restaurants with drive-through windows in the Highway Corridor based off of the following: • The three areas zoned as Highway Corridor (see Map 1, Attachment 2) are roads that carry the highest traffic volumes within the City according to VDOT 2014 data. • Areas zoned Highway Corridor run up against both the northern city limits (Emmet St N of 250 Bypass to northern city limits) and the southern city limits (5th St Extended and Monticello Avenue) where much of the traffic is using these roads as a means to enter the City from the County and beyond • The purpose of the Highway Corridor Mixed Use District, expressed in Sec. 34-541, states it is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented 3 than other mixed use and neighborhood commercial districts and this district is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. • Staff recognizes that two out of the three areas zoned for Highway Corridor are within the City’s identified small areas as called out in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan ((i) Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass which includes the recently adopted Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan and (ii) 5th Street Extended), where these areas speak to future urban design opportunities, multimoldal connections, future roadways, and more walkable, bikeable and transit oriented development (Please refer to the staff report (Attachment 2, pp. 3-13) to find more detailed analysis on the small area plans). Staff would not feel comfortable allowing the proposed use by-right given there are many factors to consider other than land use compatibility specific to these identified areas (e.g. compliance with multimodal connections, open spaces, future roadways, etc.); however, staff believes allowing this use by special use permit allows for a higher level of review that requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (which includes not only the small area plan guidance but other amendments like Streets That Work), discretion for adding conditions that minimize negative impacts, and allows for the ability to deny the use request altogether. • Staff believes allowing this use via special use permit balances the reality that these areas carry the highest volumes of vehicular traffic in the City and are called out to house the most intense commercial development in order to limit it elsewhere throughout the City while still holding a higher level of review that can either ensure the end commercial product follows the guidance provided in the small area plans and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan ultimately providing for a context sensitive commercial use OR retain the ability to deny the request altogether when not appropriate. Planning Commission Among the matters discussed by the Planning Commission at their June 12, 2018 meeting were the following: • Whether the proposed ZTA was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan’s small area plans. Some Commissioners believed the proposed ZTA was incompatible. • Desire to preserve entrances to Charlottesville • Charlottesville’s goal of being a green and healthy City of Charlottesville • Other Commissioners in support of the ZTA stated Zaxby’s was a successful example of a context sensitive drive-through restaurant and that drive-through restaurants can be designed in such a way that can be in a compatible form to the City in these areas. 4 Alignment with City Council’s Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: The proposed zoning text amendment aligns with the City Council Vision of Economic Sustainability, where the City is a “business friendly environment.” The proposed zoning text amendment aligns with the City’s Strategic Plan, Goal 4.3, “grow and retain viable businesses.” Allowing the proposed use via special use permit (higher level of review) aligns with Strategic Plan, Goal 3.1, “engage in…context sensitive urban planning….” Community Engagement: No public comment was received. Budgetary Impact: No budgetary impact. Recommendation: The Commission took the following action: Ms. Keller moved to recommend denial of this Zoning Text Amendment to allow restaurants with drive-through windows by special use permit in the Highway Corridor on the bases that the changes would not serve the interests of public necessity, convenience, general public welfare or good zoning practice. Mr. Solla-Yates seconded the motion. The Commission voted 5-2 (Lahendro, Mitchell) to recommend denial of the Zoning Text Amendment Alternatives: City Council has several alternatives: (1) by motion, take action to approve the attached resolution (granting the ZTA); (2) by motion, request changes to the attached Resolution, and then approve the ZTA in accordance with the amended Resolution; (3) by motion, deny the requested ZTA (as recommended by the Planning Commission). Attachment: (1) Proposed Resolution Approving a Zoning Text Amendment (2) Staff Report with Attachments, June 12, 2018 5 ZT-18-04-01 ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 34 (ZONING) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (1990), AS AMENDED, TO AUTHORIZE RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE THROUGH WINDOWS IN THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR (HW) MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, by resolution adopted April 16, 2018 City Council initiated a zoning text amendment to authorize drive through windows in restaurants in the Highway Corridor (HW) Mixed Use Zoning District (“Proposed Zoning Text Amendment”); and WHEREAS, following a public hearing duly advertised and conducted in accordance with law, the Planning Commission considered the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment at its meeting on June 12, 2018, and voted to recommend denial of the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment as presented; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment was held by City Council on July 2, 2018, after notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and comments from the public, this Council is of the opinion that the Proposed Zoning Text Amendment has been designed to give reasonable consideration to the purposes listed in Sec. 15.2-2283 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and this Council hereby finds and determines that: (i) the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice require the proposed zoning text amendment, and (ii) the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that Chapter 34 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, is hereby amended and re- enacted as follows: 1. Sec. 34-796 (Use matrix—Mixed use corridor districts) of Article VI (Mixed Use Districts), of Chapter 34 (Zoning), are hereby amended and re-enacted, to incorporate the following change in the column titled “HW”: Use Types Zoning Districts NON-RESIDENTIAL: GENERAL AND MISC. HW COMMERCIAL Restaurants: Drive-through windows S CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 12, 2018 Author of Staff Report: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 31, 2018 Application Number/Description: ZT18-04-01: Restaurants: Drive-through windows in Highway Corridor Applicable City Code Provisions: §34- 41 (Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance), §34-796 (Use matrix – mixed use corridor districts) Executive Summary This is a proposed zoning text amendment to amend §34-796 to allow restaurants with drive- through windows to be allowed by special use permit in the City’s Highway Corridor (HW) Mixed Use Districts. Staff recommends that the use be permitted by special use permit in the HW District as the intent of this district is to provide for the “intense commercial development with very limited residential use” in the “areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs” (ref. Sec. 34-541 – Mixed use districts - intent and description), as opposed to other mixed use districts within the City. By allowing this use via the special permit process, City Council reserves the authority to protect adjacent properties and/or zoning districts from potential impacts associated with the use, such as noise, lighting and business hours. Background At the April 16, 2018 City Council meeting, a zoning text amendment was initiated for consideration of allowing restaurants with drive-through windows to be allowed by special use permit in the HW District (Attachment 1). The request was brought to staff by Ashley Davies of Williams Mullen Law Firm on behalf of Alan Taylor, Riverbend Development, who is the applicant for 1801 Hydraulic (K-Mart site) redevelopment project titled “Hillsdale Place.” Project Description: The current final site plan application is under administrative review by City staff and includes Tax Map 41B Parcels 1 and 2 with road frontage on Hydraulic Road, Seminole Trail (Route 29), Hillsdale Drive and India Road. The site plan proposes i) to reduce existing buildings on-site (held by K-Mart and Gold’s Gym currently) from 121,197 SF to 77,000 SF in preparation for new retail tenants and ii) provide parking, utility and landscape improvements on-site. The Subject Property is zoned HW, EC (Highway Corridor District, Entrance Corridor Overlay (Note: The site received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) on December 15, 2017). The general usage specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Subject Property is Mixed Use. While the current final site plan proposes only renovations to the existing building on-site, Riverbend Development has indicated the desire to include in their future redevelopment plans a restaurant with a drive-through window, which currently is not allowed within the HW District. Please note: While the request was made on behalf of one developer, this consideration is for the entirety of the HW District throughout the City; and, should the ZTA be approved, any developer who wishes to include a restaurant with a drive-through window as a use on a property within the HW District would require a special use permit be approved by City Council prior to the use being allowed on said property. Relevant Code Sections: §34-1200: The restaurant definition under §34-1200 includes “fast food restaurant” which is one at which patrons order and receive food orders at a counter or window for consumption either on or off-premises. §34-157: When considering an application for a special use permit, there is a higher level of review that is conducted by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council as opposed to when a use is allowed by-right. Within Sec. 34-157, there is a list of factors that are considered prior to approving or denying such request. These factors include: • Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood • Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city’s comprehensive plan • Whether the proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations • 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 (then the section goes onto list potential adverse impacts such as traffic, noise, lighting, etc.) • Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district which it will be placed • 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 • 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. 2 Study Period and Public Hearing Once an amendment has been initiated by City Council, it is deemed referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation (City Code §34-41(d)). From the time of initiation, the planning commission has 100 days in which to make its recommendation to City Council, or else it will be deemed to be a recommendation of approval. Standard of Review As per §34-42 of the City Code, 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. Proposed Zoning Text Change Revise the Mixed Use (§34-796) matrix as follows: • Place an “S”, which indicates special use permit required, in the row labeled “Drive- through windows” under the heading “Restaurants:” located in the Non-residential: General and Misc. Commercial section, under the HW zoning district column. Standard of Review Analysis 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; Land Use Chapter: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter lists goals that include but are not limited to: establishing a mix of use throughout Charlottesville, being context sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, highlighting pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces, and providing opportunities for employment centers and nodes of activity along mixed-use corridors. The areas within the City that are zoned HW District fall under the Land Use category Mixed Use, which is described as “areas intended to … encourage development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a large variety of uses will be permitted, including many 3 commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.” Land Use Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to allow for restaurants with drive-through windows is consistent with the Land Use general guidelines mentioned above given that: • The areas within the City zoned HW District fall under the Mixed Use land use category, which is called to encourage “many commercial uses” • Allowing restaurants with drive-through windows in the HW District by special use permit will require a higher level of review than if the use was allowed by-right. Staff believes because of the higher level of review, which includes a number of factors that have to be considered when reviewing a special use permit as well as the ability to include conditions that help mitigate potential adverse impacts, there is flexibility and more liberty in review to help guide development that would conform to many of the general guidelines given in the Land Use Chapter that speak to urban design, context sensitivity, and connectivity. Should the ZTA be approved, developers wishing to include a restaurant with a drive-through window in the HW District would be required to include in their design how the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and its goals. In addition to that, Staff, Planning Commission and Council can recommend conditions that help mitigate potential adverse impacts and help provide for a better design overall. For example, increased buffering, increased screening for parking that is relegated to the back of the building, limited business hours to prevent noise issues, wider sidewalks, café seating areas, requiring the drive-through window/order area to not be visible from the right-of-way, etc., would provide for a drive-through window design that is more context sensitive, follows urban design guidelines, and fits more into what is desired for a commercial use in the City. Furthermore, if an application is presented that does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Council has the ability to deny such request. Given the higher level of review and built in flexibility, staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Below, staff goes into further detail regarding the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter’s small area plans and how these areas relate to the proposed amendment; however, the above analysis is the overall analysis given for the Land Use Chapter. Land Use Small Areas: Within the Land Use Chapter of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, there are several specific areas identified for future small area plans with the goal in mind that the resulting small area plans will provide the basis for future planning, urban design and investment decisions. There are three corridors within the City fall under the HW District zoning: i) Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass, ii) a portion of 5th Street extended, and iii) a portion of Monticello Avenue (See Map 1). 4 MAP 1: 5 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 12, 2018 Author of Staff Report: Heather Newmyer, AICP Date of Staff Report: May 31, 2018 Application Number/Description: ZT18-04-01: Restaurants: Drive-through windows in Highway Corridor Applicable City Code Provisions: §34- 41 (Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance), §34-796 (Use matrix – mixed use corridor districts) Executive Summary This is a proposed zoning text amendment to amend §34-796 to allow restaurants with drive- through windows to be allowed by special use permit in the City’s Highway Corridor (HW) Mixed Use Districts. Staff recommends that the use be permitted by special use permit in the HW District as the intent of this district is to provide for the “intense commercial development with very limited residential use” in the “areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs” (ref. Sec. 34-541 – Mixed use districts - intent and description), as opposed to other mixed use districts within the City. By allowing this use via the special permit process, City Council reserves the authority to protect adjacent properties and/or zoning districts from potential impacts associated with the use, such as noise, lighting and business hours. Background At the April 16, 2018 City Council meeting, a zoning text amendment was initiated for consideration of allowing restaurants with drive-through windows to be allowed by special use permit in the HW District (Attachment 1). The request was brought to staff by Ashley Davies of Williams Mullen Law Firm on behalf of Alan Taylor, Riverbend Development, who is the applicant for 1801 Hydraulic (K-Mart site) redevelopment project titled “Hillsdale Place.” Project Description: The current final site plan application is under administrative review by City staff and includes Tax Map 41B Parcels 1 and 2 with road frontage on Hydraulic Road, Seminole Trail (Route 29), Hillsdale Drive and India Road. The site plan proposes i) to reduce existing buildings on-site (held by K-Mart and Gold’s Gym currently) from 121,197 SF to 77,000 SF in preparation for new retail tenants and ii) provide parking, utility and landscape improvements on-site. The Subject Property is zoned HW, EC (Highway Corridor District, Entrance Corridor Overlay (Note: The site received a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) on December 15, 2017). The general usage specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Subject Property is Mixed Use. While the current final site plan proposes only renovations to the existing building on-site, Riverbend Development has indicated the desire to include in their future redevelopment plans a restaurant with a drive-through window, which currently is not allowed within the HW District. Please note: While the request was made on behalf of one developer, this consideration is for the entirety of the HW District throughout the City; and, should the ZTA be approved, any developer who wishes to include a restaurant with a drive-through window as a use on a property within the HW District would require a special use permit be approved by City Council prior to the use being allowed on said property. Relevant Code Sections: §34-1200: The restaurant definition under §34-1200 includes “fast food restaurant” which is one at which patrons order and receive food orders at a counter or window for consumption either on or off-premises. §34-157: When considering an application for a special use permit, there is a higher level of review that is conducted by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council as opposed to when a use is allowed by-right. Within Sec. 34-157, there is a list of factors that are considered prior to approving or denying such request. These factors include: • Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood • Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city’s comprehensive plan • Whether the proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations • 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 (then the section goes onto list potential adverse impacts such as traffic, noise, lighting, etc.) • Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district which it will be placed • 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 • 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. 2 Study Period and Public Hearing Once an amendment has been initiated by City Council, it is deemed referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation (City Code §34-41(d)). From the time of initiation, the planning commission has 100 days in which to make its recommendation to City Council, or else it will be deemed to be a recommendation of approval. Standard of Review As per §34-42 of the City Code, 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. Proposed Zoning Text Change Revise the Mixed Use (§34-796) matrix as follows: • Place an “S”, which indicates special use permit required, in the row labeled “Drive- through windows” under the heading “Restaurants:” located in the Non-residential: General and Misc. Commercial section, under the HW zoning district column. Standard of Review Analysis 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; Land Use Chapter: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter lists goals that include but are not limited to: establishing a mix of use throughout Charlottesville, being context sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, highlighting pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces, and providing opportunities for employment centers and nodes of activity along mixed-use corridors. The areas within the City that are zoned HW District fall under the Land Use category Mixed Use, which is described as “areas intended to … encourage development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a large variety of uses will be permitted, including many 3 commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.” Land Use Staff Analysis: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to allow for restaurants with drive-through windows is consistent with the Land Use general guidelines mentioned above given that: • The areas within the City zoned HW District fall under the Mixed Use land use category, which is called to encourage “many commercial uses” • Allowing restaurants with drive-through windows in the HW District by special use permit will require a higher level of review than if the use was allowed by-right. Staff believes because of the higher level of review, which includes a number of factors that have to be considered when reviewing a special use permit as well as the ability to include conditions that help mitigate potential adverse impacts, there is flexibility and more liberty in review to help guide development that would conform to many of the general guidelines given in the Land Use Chapter that speak to urban design, context sensitivity, and connectivity. Should the ZTA be approved, developers wishing to include a restaurant with a drive-through window in the HW District would be required to include in their design how the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and its goals. In addition to that, Staff, Planning Commission and Council can recommend conditions that help mitigate potential adverse impacts and help provide for a better design overall. For example, increased buffering, increased screening for parking that is relegated to the back of the building, limited business hours to prevent noise issues, wider sidewalks, café seating areas, requiring the drive-through window/order area to not be visible from the right-of-way, etc., would provide for a drive-through window design that is more context sensitive, follows urban design guidelines, and fits more into what is desired for a commercial use in the City. Furthermore, if an application is presented that does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, Council has the ability to deny such request. Given the higher level of review and built in flexibility, staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Below, staff goes into further detail regarding the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter’s small area plans and how these areas relate to the proposed amendment; however, the above analysis is the overall analysis given for the Land Use Chapter. Land Use Small Areas: Within the Land Use Chapter of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, there are several specific areas identified for future small area plans with the goal in mind that the resulting small area plans will provide the basis for future planning, urban design and investment decisions. There are three corridors within the City fall under the HW District zoning: i) Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass, ii) a portion of 5th Street extended, and iii) a portion of Monticello Avenue (See Map 1). 4 MAP 1: 5 Two of these corridors fall under areas called out as small area plans in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan: Emmet Street north of 250 Bypass and 5th Street Extended. See Map 2. MAP 2: 6 The 2013 Comprehensive Plan provides the following descriptions of the following areas that are intended for future small area plans: Emmet Street north of 250 Bypass: This area possesses considerable potential for new placemaking because of road network and traffic pattern changes, the development of the Stonefield commercial and residential development in the County, and future redevelopment of the K-Mart site and Michie Drive CRHA site. This area provides an expanded opportunity for dense, urban development at a major gateway to the city. 5th Street Extended: The construction of the Avon/5th Connector and the resultant big box center will change traffic patterns in this area and is likely to stimulate increased commercial activity near this city/county edge. Planning and design studies for this area may identify urban design opportunities more consistent with the city’s desire for walkable, bikeable, and transit-supported development. While the 5th Street Extended area does not yet have a formal small area attached to the above description, the Emmet Street north of the 250 Bypass area does as of May 2018. On May 7, 2018, City Council adopted the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan as well as designated the area as an Urban Development Area (UDA) (See Attachment 2 for the Resolution, Attachment 4 for UDA State Code). Map 3, shown below, depicts the boundaries of the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan/UDA which correspond to the boundaries shown in the full report that was also approved on May 7, 2018 (Attachment 3). Now part of the Comprehensive Plan, this small area plan is to act as the basis for future planning, design and investment decisions. 7 MAP 3: 8 A high-level overview of some of the recommendations and guidelines from this plan include: • Road Framework Plan which includes proposed roads (p. 58, Attachment 3) • Conceptual Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan which includes proposed multi-modal facilities (p. 60 of Attachment 3) • Conceptual Open Space, Parks and Natural Systems Plan (p. 61 of Attachment 3) • Conceptual Land Use Plan (p. 71 of Attachment 3) • Conceptual Core Area Plan (p. 85 of Attachment 3) The Conceptual Land Use Plan within the Hydraulic-29 Plan calls for the following land uses in the areas zoned HW District along Emmet St: Mixed Use Commercial, Commercial, Mixed Use Residential, and Mixed Use Office/Institutional (see p. 71 of Attachment 3). Land Use Small Areas Staff Analysis: Provided below is a more detailed analysis that is broken down into the three sections referencing the three corridors in the City zoned HW District. i) HW Districts along Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass: One of the corridors the HW District falls within is along Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass, an area called out in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan for future small area plans. On May 7, 2018, the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan was adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by Council as a plan that provides more detailed guidance in the Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass area as mentioned above. Staff recognizes there is a high level of detail and guidance provided in the recently adopted Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan that speaks to future roadways, multimodal connections, open spaces and land use recommendations. Any new development being proposed that falls within the Hydraulic-29 small area plan should incorporate elements of the small area plan and comply. The majority of the areas zoned HW District on the City’s current zoning map are called out in the Hydraulic-29 Plan for land use that is mixed use commercial or mixed use residential. The proposed zoning text amendment that would allow a restaurant with a drive-through window would not necessarily go against the recommended land uses; however, staff would not feel comfortable allowing this use by-right as there are many other factors than land use compatibility that come into play when applying implementation of a small area plan (e.g. compliance with future roads, multimodal connections, open spaces, etc). Allowing a restaurant with a drive-through window by special use permit in the HW District allows for the higher level of review prescribed in Sec. 34-157, where many factors are weighed prior to a recommendation being made, one of which is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As such, any special use permit application for this use at a property falling within the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan would be required to show compliance with the elements prescribed in the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan as part of the application per Sec. 34-157(a)(2). 9 Staff believes the amendment would be consistent with the small area plan due to the special use permit application process having the built in required compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Sec. 34-157(a)(2)), the discretion for Council to provide conditions that prevent any negative impacts to adjacent communities can be minimized, or the ability to deny a special use permit request if the application request is found non- compliant to elements of the small area plan, etc. ii) HW Districts along 5th Street Extended: While the Comprehensive Plan does not include a more detailed small area plan for the 5th Street Extended area, the description provided within the Comprehensive Plan states there will be “increased commercial activity” near the city/county edge. The description also states this area is desired for walkable, bikeable, and transit-supported development. Because of the future desire for this area to identify urban design opportunities that allow for more walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented development, staff believes allowing restaurants with drive-through windows by-right would prevent such opportunities. However, staff recognizes that this is one of the three corridors total in the City identified as a Highway Corridor that carries higher volumes of vehicular traffic, and, therefore, would be appropriate to house a more auto-oriented use. The special use permit process allows for a higher level of review, requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, discretion for adding conditions that minimize negative impacts, and allows for the ability to deny the use request altogether. Because of this, staff believes that allowing this use by special use permit would either ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals for this area OR allow the ability for the request to be denied if compliance is not met. Allowing the more auto-oriented use via special use permit also recognizes that this area does carry more vehicular traffic and is one of three areas called out by the City as a Highway Corridor. iii) Monticello Avenue: The third area of the City zoned HW District is near the southeastern city/county edge and includes a portion of Monticello Avenue (Route 20) that runs through the city/county edge. This area is not called out as a small area in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. In addition to Monticello Avenue, this area includes streets such as Linden Avenue, Monticello Road, Keystone and Mountain View Street. This area contains a mixture of uses that include residential uses (condominiums, townhomes, single-family residential homes) and commercial uses (gas station, Moose’s By The Creek restaurant, Albemarle Heating & Air, Jaunt, a private tree business, roofing business, and more). Because of this area’s proximity to Route 20 and I 64, staff sees this area as being appropriate for potentially housing a restaurant with a drive-through window; however, staff believes allowing this use by special use permit is vital in protecting the existing residential uses of the area because there are pockets within the overall area that are predominately residential and would not be appropriate unless it was shown by the applicant that conditions would adequately mitigate potential adverse impacts. 10 Economic Sustainability Chapter The Comprehensive Plan Economic Sustainability Chapter lists goals that include but are not limited to: work strategically to continue to develop and implement land use policies and regulations that ensure the availability of sites for businesses to locate and expand as well as generate successful businesses. Economic Sustainability Staff Analysis: Staff believes the amendment is consistent with goals prescribed in the Economic Sustainability Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as this amendment would open up the opportunity for a use to available locations in the HW District in the zoning district that staff believes is most appropriate to house this type of commercial use. Streets That Work The Streets That Work Plan was adopted by City Council on September 6, 2016 as an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Streets That Work Plan includes design guidelines that provide guidance for all elements of the public right-of-way and include design recommendations specific to the street types given for the City’s framework streets. For example, in the Mixed Use A Street Typology (both Emmet St N of 250 Bypass and 5th Street Extended classified as Mixed Use A) prioritize bicycle facilities, >7’ sidewalks and 3’- 6’ curbside buffers. Streets That Work Plan also identifies that Charlottesville’s principal arterial roadways carry a disproportionate amount of the traffic in and through the city, whereas 74% of roads in Charlottesville have an average annual daily traffic (AADT) count below 1,000, which is relatively low. The roads that include the highest traffic volumes are shown below in Table 1 of this report, taken from Chapter 3 of the Streets That Work Plan. Please note all three of the HW District corridors are along roads with the highest traffic volumes in the City and the 29 N/Seminole Trail corridor (250 Bypass to North City Limits) is the highest with 60,000 AADT (2014). 11 TABLE 1: AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC ON CHARLOTTESVILLE’S MAJOR ROADS1 1 City of Charlottesville. Streets That Work Plan. Adopted September 2016. < http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development- services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan> 12 Streets That Work Staff Analysis: Staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with the Streets That Work Plan because of the following: • The proposed amendment would allow for a use that is more auto-oriented in three areas that are identified as carrying the highest traffic volumes throughout the City. By allowing this use in the higher volume areas of the City, staff believes there is opportunity to localize the use in the appropriate areas in the City while protecting other areas in the City with less intensive commercial uses. • Since Streets That Work was adopted in September 2016, there have been many developers who have incorporated the recommendations in STW that are given for the street type their project fronts on. Staff has found that in cases where there is a higher level of review on such projects (e.g. Entrance Corridor, Special Use Permit), the developer is more likely to comply with the recommended guidelines found in Streets That Work. In some cases, there are conditions included as part of the higher level of review that requires the developer to comply with certain guidelines found within STW. A few examples of recent projects that have been approved or are in review that include street elements that follow the design parameters found in STW are: o the CVS at Barracks and Emmet (required Entrance Corridor review; site plan approved/under construction) o Zaxby’s restaurant located at 1248 Emmet St (required Special Use Permit for restaurant drive-through window; approved/ construction complete). o Hillsdale Place (1801 Hydraulic Rd) (required Entrance Corridor Review; site plan still in review) *Note: Developer showing 10’ multiuse trails and 5’ curbside buffers along Hydraulic and Seminole Trail– this was also vetted through TJPDC as this review ran while Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan was being developed Staff brings up the above mentioned examples to show that there have been successes in implementing Streets That Work in part to the higher level of reviews in place for certain development projects. Staff believes the proposed amendment is consistent with Streets That Work Plan as it would allow the use by special use permit, allowing for the higher level of review and required compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which includes Streets That Work. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; The purpose of the Highway Corridor Mixed Use District is expressed in Sec. 34-541 as “to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Staff Analysis: The purposes of the chapter would be furthered by the amendment. An approved amendment would not only encourage economic development but also better align the district with its intent, where it is stated that this district is “traditionally auto driven” and 13 is intended for the “most intense commercial development in Charlottesville.” Staff believes that by focusing this auto-oriented use to the City’s high volume corridors, this could help relieve pressure from other zoning districts throughout the City that are intended for mixed use and pedestrian centered development patterns (e.g. the Urban Corridor (URB) Mixed Use District). In addition, by permitting the use through a special use permit, adjacent properties and neighborhoods can be protected while having their character and stability enhanced. In allowing the uses by special use permit, neighborhood participation in the development process is also encouraged through a public hearing. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; Staff believes there is a justification for the change because the zoning text amendment, if approved, would be allowing an auto-oriented use by special use permit in areas in the City that experience the highest volumes of traffic and where the zoning district’s intent expressly states these areas are traditionally auto-driven. As stated before, by allowing this type of use in this zoning district, this could help relieve pressure from other zoning districts that are intended for a variety of uses that are more pedestrian focused and less intensive. 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. This zoning text amendment does not include a change in the zoning district classification of any particular property. The zoning text amendment proposes to allow for a use by special use permit throughout the entirety of the HW District. Staff believes that allowing a restaurant with a drive-through window by special use permit in the HW District ensures a built-in review process that’s aim is to protect adjacent properties from potential negative impacts; and, furthermore, provide a way to deny such request if, in the end, a specific location is not appropriate. Public Comment No public comment has been received at this time. Recommendation As noted in the Streets That Work Plan, the three areas zoned as Highway Corridor (see Map 1) are roads that carry the highest traffic volumes within the City (See Table 1). One corridor in particular, 29 N/Seminole Trail, carries the highest volumes in the City, totaling at 60,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) according to VDOT in 2014. The three areas zoned as Highway Corridor run up against both the northern city limits (Emmet St north of 250 Bypass to 14 northern city limits) and the southern city limits (5th St Extended and Monticello Avenue) where much of the traffic is using these roads as a means to enter the City from the County and beyond. Given that these areas not only carry the most traffic but the zoning district specifically calls for these areas to house more auto oriented uses than other mixed use and neighborhood corridors and limit the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville within this district, staff finds the proposed amendment to be appropriate. Staff recognizes, as mentioned in detail above, that two out of the three areas zoned for Highway Corridor are within the City’s identified small areas as called out in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan: i) Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass and ii) 5th Street Extended. Within the Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass area, the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan has just been adopted in May 2018 by City Council. The Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan provides more detailed guidance that speaks to future roadways, multimodal connections, open spaces and land use recommendations. The majority of the areas zoned HW District are called out in the Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan for land use that is mixed use commercial or mixed use residential. Both the Emmet St north of the 250 Bypass (which includes the adopted Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan) and the 5th Street Extended areas speak to future urban design opportunities, multimodal connections, and more walkable, bikeable and transit oriented development. While staff would not feel comfortable allowing the proposed use by-right as there are many factors to consider other than land use compatibility within these identified areas (e.g. compliance with multimodal connections, open spaces, future roadways, etc.), staff believes allowing this use by special use permit allows for a higher level of review, requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (which includes not only the small area plan guidance but the above mentioned Streets That Work Design Guidelines as well), discretion for adding conditions that minimize negative impacts, and allows for the ability to deny the use request altogether. Allowing the more auto-oriented use via special use permit retains the ability (through the higher level of review) to shape a drive-through development that is more context sensitive, follows the urban design guidelines and goals given in the Comprehensive Plan, including those more detailed guidelines prescribed in the small area plans, and provide for a more desirable commercial use in the City. In addition, the proposed amendment acknowledges that these areas carry the highest volumes of vehicular traffic in the City and are called out to house the most intense commercial development in order to limit it elsewhere throughout the City. Staff recommends that the zoning text amendment be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council as written to allow restaurants with drive-through windows by special use permit in the HW – Highway Corridor zone. Appropriate Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to amend and re- ordain Section 34-796 of the Code of The City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to allow restaurants with drive-through windows by special use permit in the Highway Corridor on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of (public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice).” 15 2. “I move to recommend approval of this zoning text amendment to amend and re- ordain Section 34-796 of the Code of The City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to allow restaurants with drive-through windows by special use permit in the Highway Corridor on the basis that the changes would serve the interests of (public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice) with the following additions and modifications:” a. b. 3. “I move to recommend denial of this zoning text amendment to amend and re- ordain Section 34-796 of the Code of The City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, to allow restaurants with drive-through windows by special use permit in the Highway Corridor on the basis that the changes would not serve the interests of (public necessity, convenience, general public welfare and/or good zoning practice) for the following reasons: ….” a. b. Attachments 1) ZTA Initiation April 16, 2018 2) Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan Resolution, Adopted May 8, 2018 3) Hydraulic-29 Small Area Plan Final Report, Adopted May 8, 2018 Follow link: https://bit.ly/2JmlUZF 4) §15.2-2223.1 – Urban Development Area (UDA) State Code 16 Code of Virginia Title 15.2. Counties, Cities and Towns Chapter 22. Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning § 15.2-2223.1. Comprehensive plan to include urban development areas A. For purposes of this section: "Commercial" means property devoted to usual and customary business purposes for the sale of goods and services and includes, but is not limited to, retail operations, hotels, motels and offices. "Commercial" does not include residential dwelling units, including apartments and condominiums, or agricultural or forestal production, or manufacturing, processing, assembling, storing, warehousing, or distributing. "Commission" means the Commission on Local Government. "Developable acreage," solely for the purposes of calculating density within the urban development area, means land that is not included in (i) existing parks, rights-of-way of arterial and collector streets, railways, and public utilities and (ii) other existing public lands and facilities. "Population growth" means the difference in population from the next-to-latest to the latest decennial census year, based on population reported by the United States Bureau of the Census. In computing its population growth, a locality may exclude the inmate population of any new or expanded correctional facility that opened within the time period between the two censuses. "Urban development area" means an area designated by a locality that is (i) appropriate for higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area and (ii) to the extent feasible, to be used for redevelopment or infill development. B. Any locality may amend its comprehensive plan to incorporate one or more urban development areas. 1. Urban development areas are areas that may be appropriate for development at a density on the developable acreage of at least four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per acre, and an authorized floor area ratio of at least 0.4 per acre for commercial development, any proportional combination thereof, or any other combination or arrangement that is adopted by a locality in meeting the intent of this section. 2. The urban development areas designated by a locality may be sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 20 years, which may include phasing of development within the urban development areas. Where an urban development area in a county with the urban county executive form of government includes planned or existing rail transit, the planning horizon may be for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than 40 years. Future residential and commercial growth shall be based on official estimates of either the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia, the Virginia Employment Commission, the United States Bureau of the Census, or other official government projections required for federal transportation planning 1 5/31/2018 purposes. 3. The boundaries and size of each urban development area shall be reexamined and, if necessary, revised every five years in conjunction with the review of the comprehensive plan and in accordance with the most recent available population growth estimates and projections. 4. The boundaries of each urban development area shall be identified in the locality's comprehensive plan and shall be shown on future land use maps contained in such comprehensive plan. 5. Urban development areas, if designated, shall incorporate principles of traditional neighborhood design, which may include but need not be limited to (i) pedestrian-friendly road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets with existing local streets and roads, (iii) connectivity of road and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas, (v) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types, with affordable housing to meet the projected family income distributions of future residential growth, (vi) reduction of front and side yard building setbacks, and (vii) reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision street intersections. 6. The comprehensive plan shall describe any financial and other incentives for development in the urban development areas. 7. A portion of one or more urban development areas may be designated as a receiving area for any transfer of development rights program established by the locality. C. No locality that has amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with this section shall limit or prohibit development pursuant to existing zoning or shall refuse to consider any application for rezoning based solely on the fact that the property is located outside the urban development area. D. Localities shall consult with adjacent localities, as well as the relevant planning district commission and metropolitan planning organization, in establishing the appropriate size and location of urban development areas to promote orderly and efficient development of their region. E. Any county that amends its comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection B may designate one or more urban development areas in any incorporated town within such county, if the council of the town has also amended its comprehensive plan to designate the same areas as urban development areas with at least the same density designated by the county. However, if a town has established an urban development area within its corporate boundaries, the county within which the town is located shall not include the town's projected population and commercial growth when initially determining or reexamining the size and boundary of any other urban development area within the county. F. To the extent possible, federal, state and local transportation, housing, water and sewer facility, economic development, and other public infrastructure funding for new and expanded facilities shall be directed to designated urban development areas or to such similar areas that accommodate growth in a manner consistent with this section. 2007, c. 896;2009, c. 327;2010, cc. 465, 528;2011, c. 561;2012, cc. 192, 518, 805, 836. The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section 2 5/31/2018 may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired. 3 5/31/2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Vote to Recommend Approval or Denial of Zoning Text Amendment Presenter: Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson; Mike Stoneking (PLACE); Missy Creasy Title: Zoning Text Amendments Proposing Clarifications of Provisions within Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance (Mixed Use Districts) Background: In November 2016, the City Attorney’s Office provided a Legal Audit of the Zoning Ordinance. Among the deficiencies noted within the Legal Audit is the fact that there are several mixed-use corridor districts in which bonus building height, or bonus residential density, is offered, but there is no guidance within the ordinance as to how “significant” each mixed use component (i.e., residential and non-residential) needs to be in order to qualify for the bonus. This deficiency was discussed by the City Attorney’s office staff and the Planning Commission in a series of workshop meetings in 2017. In the opinion of the City Attorney’s office, this situation represents poor zoning practice. In the summer of 2017 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution authorizing the City Attorney’s office to proceed to draft several categories of zoning text amendments deemed most urgent. This particular issue was among those which were considered most urgent. After that resolution was adopted, however, PLACE organized a working group of local design professionals, attorneys and developers who requested an opportunity to brainstorm a different way to achieve the goals of the bonus provisions. The efforts of the working group were in earnest; however, they ultimately did not agree on an approach that would solve the significant loopholes that exist in the current ordinance. In March 2018 Mike Stoneking, on behalf of PLACE, transmitted a Memo to the City Attorney’s Office (copied to Lisa Green, PC Chair, Kathy Galvin, City Councilor, and to PLACE members) requesting that staff request the Planning Commission to consider the recommended short-term fix proposed by the City Attorney’s Office. At its meeting on June 12, 2018, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance by City Council. 1 Discussion: Attached is a proposed ordinance, seeking to include within the introductory, “general” provisions of Chapter 34, Article VI (Mixed Use Corridor Districts) a section addressing how to interpret the term “mixed use” for purposes of determining eligibility for bonus height or density provisions. The proposed amendments specify a minimum percentage (12.5%) of GFA that must be met by each category of use (residential, and non-residential) within a mixed-use building, development or project—IF there is otherwise no percentage specified within the regulations for a particular mixed use zoning district. The attached ordinance also proposes two housekeeping changes to the existing ordinance: (1) Moving provisions that reference the “purpose and intent” of a specific mixed use zoning district into the Division that contains the regulations for that district, AND moving the provisions which establish “primary” and “linking” streets for a specific district (and which related specifically to the setbacks for those districts) into the Division for that specific zoning district. (2) Making the list of additional regulations at the end of “Division 1” more accessible to read and understand. Community Engagement: As noted, the provisions of the November 2016 Legal Audit were discussed at a series of public meetings and workshops of the Planning Commission throughout 2017. Also, the provisions of this proposed text amendment were the subject of a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting on June 12, 2018, and City Council will also conduct a public hearing on this proposed ordinance at their meeting on July 2, 2018. Budgetary Impact: None Recommendation: The City Attorney’s Office recommends approval of the proposed zoning text amendments. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance PLACE Correspondence 2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING ARTICLE VI (MIXED USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS) OF CHAPTER 34 (ZONING) RELATING TO BONUS HEIGHT OR DENSITY IN MIXED USE DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that: 1. Sections 34-540, 34-541, and 34-542 of Article VI of Chapter 34 of the Charlottesville City Code (1990), as amended, are hereby amended and reordained; and 2. Sections 34-564, 34-584, 34-604, 34-624, 34-644, 34-663, 34-682, 34-702, 34-740A, 34- 748, 34-760A, 34-767A, 34-775, and 34-783 are hereby added to the Charlottesville City Code (1990), as amended, all as follows: ARTICLE VI. MIXED USE CORRIDOR DISTRICTS DIVISION 1. GENERAL Sec. 34-540. Purpose of article. (a) The purpose of this article is to encourage mixed-use development within appropriate areas of the city, located along or adjacent to streets or highways found by the city council to be significant routes of access to the city. Objectives of these districts include the following: (i) creation of a dynamic street life, encouraging the placement of buildings close to property lines, and/or heavily landscaped yard areas, in order to engage pedestrians and de-emphasize parking facilities; (ii) encouragement of mixed-use development; (iii) facilitation of development that demonstrates an appropriateness of scale; (iv) encouragement of development that offers creative minimization of the impact of parking facilities and vehicular traffic; (v) encouragement of landscaped spaces available for pedestrian use (e.g., pocket parks, tree-lined streets and walkways); (vi) encouragement of alternate forms of transportation (e.g., pedestrian travel, bicycle paths, use of public transit); (vii) encouragement of neighborhood-enhancing economic activity; (viii) encouragement of home ownership; and (ix) encouragement of neighborhood participation in the development process. (b) The districts in which such development is encouraged fall, generally, into two (2) categories: (1) Commercial/residential mixed use districts. With little remaining vacant land, the city's continued vitality depends upon its ability to attract and facilitate a harmonious mixture of commercial and residential development and redevelopment. Generally, each of these zoning districts seeks to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial and cultural uses within a single building, or within multiple related buildings and structures. Of particular importance is the creation of corridors to serve as vital centers for economic growth and development while at the same time encouraging development that is friendly to pedestrians and alternate modes of transportation characteristic of an urban setting. 3 (2) Commercial/industrial mixed use districts. Each of these zoning districts seeks to provide an area in which important industrial uses, of limited scale, may be located, but in which opportunities for incorporation of related or harmonious commercial uses can be facilitated. 4 Sec. 34-541. Application of the term “mixed-use” for determining bonus height or density. Where a provision of any mixed use zoning district included within this article allows additional height for a “mixed use building”, or allows additional residential density for a “mixed use building”, “mixed use development” or “mixed use project”, the following requirements must be met for such building, development or project to become entitled to the additional height or density (unless different percentages are specified within the division containing the regulations for the applicable district): (1) where a provision allows additional height for a “mixed use building”, residential and non- residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of the gross floor area (GFA) of the mixed use building; (2) where a provision allows additional residential density for a “mixed use building”, residential and non-residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of the gross floor area (GFA) of the mixed use building; and (3) where a provision allows for additional residential density for a “mixed use development” or “mixed use project”, residential and non-residential uses shall each occupy at least 12.5% of the total gross floor area (GFA) of the buildings within the proposed development or project. Sec. 34-541. - Mixed use districts—Intent and description. (1) Downtown Corridor. The intent of the Downtown Corridor district is to provide for a mixture of commercial and residential uses, and encourage such development by right, according to standards that will ensure harmony with the existing commercial environment in the city's downtown area. Ground-floor uses facing on primary streets should be commercial in nature. The area within this zoning district is the entertainment and employment center of the community and the regulations set forth within this district are designed to provide appropriate and convenient housing for persons who wish to reside in proximity to those activities. Within the Downtown Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: All streets are primary. Linking streets: None. (2) Downtown Extended Corridor. Historically, the areas within the Downtown Extended district contained manufacturing uses dependent upon convenient access to railroad transportation. In more recent times, use patterns within this area are similar to those within the Downtown district. The intent of this district is to encourage an inter-related mixture of high-density residential and commercial uses harmonious with the downtown business environment, within developments that facilitate convenient pedestrian and other links to the Downtown area. Within the Downtown Extended district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Garrett Street, Monticello Avenue, 6th Street, Market Street, Carlton Road and 10th Street, N.E. 5 Linking streets: Avon Street, Dice Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, Gleason Street, Goodman Street, Oak Street, and Ware Street. (3) North Downtown Corridor. The Downtown North Corridor district is the historic center of the City of Charlottesville, and contains many historic structures. In more recent years this area has also developed as the heart of the city's legal community, including court buildings and related law and professional offices, and commercial and retail uses supporting those services. Within this area, residential uses have been established both in single-use and in mixed-use structures. Many former single-family dwellings have been converted to office use. The regulations for this district are intended to continue and protect the nature and scale of these existing patterns of development. Within the Downtown North Corridor district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: 8th Street, N.E. (between High Street and Jefferson Street), 5th Street, N.E., 1st Street, 4th Street, N.E., High Street, Jefferson Street, Market Street, 9th Street, 9th Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.W., 7th Street, N.E., 6th Street, N.E., and 3rd Street, N.E. Linking streets: East Jefferson Street (east of 10th Street, N.E.), 8th Street, 11th Street, N.E., Lexington Street, Locust Street, Maple Street, Sycamore Street. (4) West Main West Corridor. The land use and lots on West Main Street west of the railroad bridge are generally larger in size than those east of the bridge. The West Main West district ("WMW") is established to provide the opportunity for large-scale redevelopment that may alter established patterns of commercial and residential development along West Main Street and that will respect the character of neighborhoods in close proximity. Within this district, the purpose of zoning regulations is to facilitate redevelopment while at the same time creating a walkable, mixed use "main street" setting that encourages vibrant pedestrian activity. The following streets shall have the designations indicated: a. Where only one (1) street abuts a lot, that street is considered the primary street. b. Where more than one (1) street abuts a lot, the following are considered primary streets: (i) West Main Street; (ii) Roosevelt Brown Boulevard; (iii) Jefferson Park Avenue; (iv) Wertland Street; (v) 10th Street NW. c. Where a lot with multiple street frontages on the primary streets listed in subsection b. exists, each frontage is considered a primary street. d. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, streets not listed in subsection b. above will be considered a linking street. (5) West Main East Corridor. The land use and lots on West Main Street east of the railroad bridge are smaller than those west of the bridge, containing existing buildings (including historic buildings) that have been renovated to accommodate modern commercial uses. 6 Established buildings are located in close proximity to the street on which they front. Within this district, the purpose of zoning regulations is to encourage a continuation of the established pattern and scale of commercial uses, and to encourage an extension of a walkable, mixed use "main street" setting eastward from the railroad bridge, continuing into the area where the West Main Street Corridor transitions into the city's downtown. Within the West Main Street East district ("WME"), the following streets shall have the designations indicated: a. Where only one (1) street abuts a lot, that street is considered the primary street. b. Where more than one (1) street abuts a lot, the following are considered primary streets: (i) West Main Street; (ii) Commerce Street; (iii) South Street; (iv) Ridge Street; (v) 7th Street SW; (vi) 4th Street NW. c. Where a lot with multiple street frontages on the primary streets listed in subsection b. exists, each frontage is considered a primary street. d. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, streets not listed in subsection b. above will be considered a linking street. (6) Cherry Avenue Corridor. This zoning classification establishes a district designed to encourage conservation of land resources, minimize automobile travel, and promote employment and retail centers in proximity to residential uses. It permits increased development on busier streets without fostering a strip-commercial appearance. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pattern consisting of ground-floor commercial uses, with offices and residential uses located on upper floors. This district is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development, with buildings located close to and oriented towards the sidewalk areas along primary street frontages. Within the Cherry Avenue Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Cherry Avenue, 9th/10th Connector. Linking streets: 4th St., 5th St., Delevan St., Estes St., Grove St., King St., Nalle St., 9th St., 6th St., 6½ St., 7th St. (7) High Street Corridor. The areas included within this district represent a section of High Street that has historically developed around medical offices and support services, as well as neighborhood-oriented service businesses such as auto repair shops and restaurants. The regulations within this district encourage a continuation of the scale and existing character of uses established within this district, and are intended to facilitate infill development of similar uses. Within the High Street corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: East High Street and Meade Avenue. 7 Linking streets: 11th Street, Gillespie Avenue, Grace Street, Grove Avenue, Hazel Street, Moore's Street, Orange Street, Riverdale Drive, Stewart Street, Sycamore Street, Ward Avenue, and Willow Street. (8) Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district. The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bainbridge St., Carlton Ave., Douglas Ave., Fontaine Ave., Garden St., Goodman St., Hinton Ave., Holly St., Lewis St., Maury Ave., Monticello Rd., and Walnut St. Linking streets: None. (9) Highway Corridor district. The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bent Creek Road, Carlton Rd., Emmet Street, 5th Street, Harris Road, Hydraulic Road, Monticello Ave., and Seminole Trail. Linking streets: Angus Road, East View Street, Holiday Drive, India Road, Keystone Place, Knoll Street, Linden Avenue, Line Drive, Michie Drive, Mountain View Street, Seminole Circle, and Zan Road. (10) Urban Corridor. The intent of the Urban Corridor district is to continue the close-in urban commercial activity that has been the traditional development patterns in these areas. Development in this district is both pedestrian and auto oriented, but is evolving to more of a pedestrian center development pattern. The regulations provide for both a mixture of uses or single use commercial activities. It encourages parking located behind the structure and development of a scale and character that is respectful to the neighborhoods and university uses adjacent. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Barracks Road, Emmet Street, and Ivy Road. Linking streets: Arlington Boulevard, Cedars Court, Copeley Drive, Copeley Road, Earhart Street, Massie Road, Meadowbrook Road, Millmont Street and Morton Drive. (11) Central City Corridor. The intent of the Central City Corridor district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects currently found in those areas. The district allows single use 8 development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district. Within the Central Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: East High Street, Harris Street, Long Street, Preston Avenue, Rose Hill Drive, 10th Street, Preston Avenue, and River Road. Linking streets: Albemarle Street, Booker Street, Caroline Avenue, Dale Avenue, 8th Street, Forest Street, 9th Street, and West Street. (12) Water Street Corridor District. The intent of the Water Street Corridor District is to provide for a mix of commercial, retail and entertainment uses in a way that complements and supports the Downtown Pedestrian Mall area. As the Downtown Pedestrian Mall develops, the natural spillover will be to this area. While not a complete pedestrian zone, it contains many characteristics thereof. Development therefore should blend the pedestrian scale with a slightly more automobile oriented feel to achieve this supportive mixed-use environment. Primary streets: All. Linking streets: None. (13) South Street Corridor District. Adjacent to the downtown area and wedged against the railroad tracks is a small grouping of large historic homes, many of which have been converted to offices and/or apartments. In order to preserve the rich character and style of these few remaining structures from another era, the South Street Corridor District has been created. This district is intended to preserve the historic pedestrian scale, recognizing the importance of this area to the history of the downtown area. Primary streets: South Street. Linking streets: None. (14) Corner District. The Corner District is established to provide low-intensity missed-use development to primarily serve the area surrounding the University of Virginia. It encourages development at a scale that respects the established character of the historic commercial area adjacent to the central grounds of the University. Within the district two- and three-story buildings front the streets establishing a pedestrian scale for retail and commercial uses. Primary streets: University Avenue, West Main Street, Wertland Street, Elliewood Avenue 13th Street and 14th Street. Linking streets: Chancellor Street, 12th Street, 12½ Street and 13th Street. Sec. 34-542. Additional regulations. Other zoning regulations may also apply to uses, construction and development within the zoning districts included within this article. Without limitation, such other zoning regulations 9 include the following For additional regulations governing use and development of land within a mixed-use corridor zoning district, refer to: (1) Article VIII, sections 34-850, et seq. (Landscaping and Other Developments Subject to Site Plans) (2) Article IX (General Regulations), including, without limitation: (i) Off-Street Parking (sections 34-970, et seq.), (ii) Outdoor Lighting (sections 34-1000, et seq.), (iii) Sign Regulations (sections 34-1020, et seq.), (iv) Buildings and Structures (sections 34-1100, et seq.), (v) Lots and Parcels (sections 34-1120, et seq.), (vi) Approvals of residential dwellings (section 34-1125), and (vii) Mixed-use density calculation and required notations on subdivision plats, site plans, building permits and certificates of occupancy for a mixed use development (section 34-1126). Secs. 34-543—34-555. Reserved. DIVISION 2. REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR (“D”) ... Sec. 34-564. Intent and Description. Downtown Corridor. The intent of the Downtown Corridor district is to provide for a mixture of commercial and residential uses, and encourage such development by right, according to standards that will ensure harmony with the existing commercial environment in the city's downtown area. Ground-floor uses facing on primary streets should be commercial in nature. The area within this zoning district is the entertainment and employment center of the community and the regulations set forth within this district are designed to provide appropriate and convenient housing for persons who wish to reside in proximity to those activities. Within the Downtown Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: All streets are primary. Linking streets: None. DIVISION 3. REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN EXTENDED CORRIDOR (“DE”) ... Sec. 34-584. Intent and Description. Downtown Extended Corridor. Historically, the areas within the Downtown Extended district contained manufacturing uses dependent upon convenient access to railroad transportation. In more recent times, use patterns within this area are similar to those within the Downtown district. 10 The intent of this district is to encourage an inter-related mixture of high-density residential and commercial uses harmonious with the downtown business environment, within developments that facilitate convenient pedestrian and other links to the Downtown area. Within the Downtown Extended district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Garrett Street, Monticello Avenue, 6th Street, Market Street, Carlton Road and 10th Street, N.E. Linking streets: Avon Street, Dice Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, Gleason Street, Goodman Street, Oak Street, and Ware Street. DIVISION 4. REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN NORTH CORRIDOR (“DN”) ... Sec. 34-604. Intent and Description. Downtown North Corridor. The Downtown North Corridor district is the historic center of the City of Charlottesville, and contains many historic structures. In more recent years this area has also developed as the heart of the city's legal community, including court buildings and related law and professional offices, and commercial and retail uses supporting those services. Within this area, residential uses have been established both in single-use and in mixed-use structures. Many former single-family dwellings have been converted to office use. The regulations for this district are intended to continue and protect the nature and scale of these existing patterns of development. Within the Downtown North Corridor district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: 8th Street, N.E. (between High Street and Jefferson Street), 5th Street, N.E., 1st Street, 4th Street, N.E., High Street, Jefferson Street, Market Street, 9th Street, 9th Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.W., 7th Street, N.E., 6th Street, N.E., and 3rd Street, N.E. Linking streets: East Jefferson Street (east of 10th Street, N.E.), 8th Street, 11th Street, N.E., Lexington Street, Locust Street, Maple Street, Sycamore Street. DIVISION 5. REGULATIONS—WEST MAIN STREET WEST CORRIDOR (“WMW”) ... Sec. 34-624. Intent and Description. West Main West Corridor. The land use and lots on West Main Street west of the railroad bridge are generally larger in size than those east of the bridge. The West Main West district ("WMW") is established to provide the opportunity for large-scale redevelopment that may alter established patterns of commercial and residential development along West Main Street and that will respect the character of neighborhoods in close proximity. Within this district, the purpose of zoning regulations is to facilitate redevelopment while at the same time creating a walkable, mixed use "main street" setting that encourages vibrant pedestrian activity. The following streets shall have the designations indicated: a. Where only one (1) street abuts a lot, that street is considered the primary street. 11 b. Where more than one (1) street abuts a lot, the following are considered primary streets: (i) West Main Street; (ii) Roosevelt Brown Boulevard; (iii) Jefferson Park Avenue; (iv) Wertland Street; (v) 10th Street NW. c. Where a lot with multiple street frontages on the primary streets listed in subsection b. exists, each frontage is considered a primary street. d. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, streets not listed in subsection b. above will be considered a linking street. DIVISION 6. REGULATIONS—WEST MAIN STREET EAST CORRIDOR (“WME”) ... Sec. 34-644. Intent and Description. West Main East Corridor. The land use and lots on West Main Street east of the railroad bridge are smaller than those west of the bridge, containing existing buildings (including historic buildings) that have been renovated to accommodate modern commercial uses. Established buildings are located in close proximity to the street on which they front. Within this district, the purpose of zoning regulations is to encourage a continuation of the established pattern and scale of commercial uses, and to encourage an extension of a walkable, mixed use "main street" setting eastward from the railroad bridge, continuing into the area where the West Main Street Corridor transitions into the city's downtown. Within the West Main Street East district ("WME"), the following streets shall have the designations indicated: a. Where only one (1) street abuts a lot, that street is considered the primary street. b. Where more than one (1) street abuts a lot, the following are considered primary streets: (i) West Main Street; (ii) Commerce Street; (iii) South Street; (iv) Ridge Street; (v) 7th Street SW; (vi) 4th Street NW. c. Where a lot with multiple street frontages on the primary streets listed in subsection b. exists, each frontage is considered a primary street. d. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, streets not listed in subsection b. above will be considered a linking street. 12 DIVISION 7. REGULATIONS—CHERRY AVENUE CORRIDOR (“CH”) ... Sec. 34-663. Intent and Description. Cherry Avenue Corridor. This zoning classification establishes a district designed to encourage conservation of land resources, minimize automobile travel, and promote employment and retail centers in proximity to residential uses. It permits increased development on busier streets without fostering a strip-commercial appearance. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pattern consisting of ground-floor commercial uses, with offices and residential uses located on upper floors. This district is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development, with buildings located close to and oriented towards the sidewalk areas along primary street frontages. Within the Cherry Avenue Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Cherry Avenue, 9th/10th Connector. Linking streets: 4th St., 5th St., Delevan St., Estes St., Grove St., King St., Nalle St., 9th St., 6th St., 6½ St., 7th St. DIVISION 8. REGULATIONS—HIGH STREET CORRIDOR (“HS”) ... Sec. 34-682. Intent and Description. High Street Corridor. The areas included within this district represent a section of High Street that has historically developed around medical offices and support services, as well as neighborhood-oriented service businesses such as auto repair shops and restaurants. The regulations within this district encourage a continuation of the scale and existing character of uses established within this district, and are intended to facilitate infill development of similar uses. Within the High Street corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: East High Street and Meade Avenue. Linking streets: 11th Street, Gillespie Avenue, Grace Street, Grove Avenue, Hazel Street, Moore's Street, Orange Street, Riverdale Drive, Stewart Street, Sycamore Street, Ward Avenue, and Willow Street. DIVISION 9. REGULATIONS—NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (“NCC”) ... Sec. 34-702. Intent and Description. Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district. The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial 13 areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bainbridge St., Carlton Ave., Douglas Ave., Fontaine Ave., Garden St., Goodman St., Hinton Ave., Holly St., Lewis St., Maury Ave., Monticello Rd., and Walnut St. Linking streets: None. DIVISION 10. REGULATIONS—HIGHWAY CORRIDOR (“HW”) ... Sec. 34-740A. Intent and Description. Highway Corridor district. The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bent Creek Road, Carlton Rd., Emmet Street, 5th Street, Harris Road, Hydraulic Road, Monticello Ave., and Seminole Trail. Linking streets: Angus Road, East View Street, Holiday Drive, India Road, Keystone Place, Knoll Street, Linden Avenue, Line Drive, Michie Drive, Mountain View Street, Seminole Circle, and Zan Road. DIVISION 11. REGULATIONS—WATER STREET DISTRICT (“WSD”) ... Sec. 34-748. Intent and Description. Water Street Corridor district. The intent of the Water Street Corridor District is to provide for a mix of commercial, retail and entertainment uses in a way that complements and supports the Downtown Pedestrian Mall area. As the Downtown Pedestrian Mall develops, the natural spillover will be to this area. While not a complete pedestrian zone, it contains many characteristics thereof. Development therefore should blend the pedestrian scale with a slightly more automobile oriented feel to achieve this supportive mixed-use environment. Primary streets: All. Linking streets: None. 14 DIVISION 12. REGULATIONS—URBAN CORRIDOR (“URB”) ... Sec. 34-760A. Intent and Description. Urban Corridor. The intent of the Urban Corridor district is to continue the close-in urban commercial activity that has been the traditional development patterns in these areas. Development in this district is both pedestrian and auto oriented, but is evolving to more of a pedestrian center development pattern. The regulations provide for both a mixture of uses or single use commercial activities. It encourages parking located behind the structure and development of a scale and character that is respectful to the neighborhoods and university uses adjacent. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Barracks Road, Emmet Street, and Ivy Road. Linking streets: Arlington Boulevard, Cedars Court, Copeley Drive, Copeley Road, Earhart Street, Massie Road, Meadowbrook Road, Millmont Street and Morton Drive. DIVISION 13. REGULATIONS—SOUTH STREET DISTRICT (“SS”) ... Sec. 34-767A. Intent and Description. South Street Corridor District. Adjacent to the downtown area and wedged against the railroad tracks is a small grouping of large historic homes, many of which have been converted to offices and/or apartments. In order to preserve the rich character and style of these few remaining structures from another era, the South Street Corridor District has been created. This district is intended to preserve the historic pedestrian scale, recognizing the importance of this area to the history of the downtown area. Primary streets: South Street. Linking streets: None. DIVISION 14. REGULATIONS—CORNER DISTRICT (“CD”) ... Sec. 34-775. Intent and Description. Corner District. The Corner District is established to provide low-intensity missed-use development to primarily serve the area surrounding the University of Virginia. It encourages development at a scale that respects the established character of the historic commercial area adjacent to the central grounds of the University. Within the district two- and three-story buildings front the streets establishing a pedestrian scale for retail and commercial uses. Primary streets: University Avenue, West Main Street, Wertland Street, Elliewood Avenue 13th Street and 14th Street. 15 Linking streets: Chancellor Street, 12th Street, 12½ Street and 13th Street. DIVISION 15. REGULATIONS—CENTRAL CITY CORRIDOR (“CC”) ... Sec. 34-783. Intent and Description. Central City Corridor. The intent of the Central City Corridor district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects currently found in those areas. The district allows single use development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district. Within the Central Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: East High Street, Harris Street, Long Street, Preston Avenue, Rose Hill Drive, 10th Street, Preston Avenue, and River Road. Linking streets: Albemarle Street, Booker Street, Caroline Avenue, Dale Avenue, 8th Street, Forest Street, 9th Street, and West Street. 16 Memorandum March 9, 2018 From: PLACE Design Task Force To: Lisa Robertson. cc: Lisa Green, Chair Planning Commission, Kathy Galvin, City Council, PLACE Re: Mixed Use. Dear Lisa, At the February 8th meeting of PLACE we discussed your proposed provisional zoning ordinance text amendment as shown below: (full copy of your memo under separate cover in email). There were only five PLACE members in attendance but we unanimously agreed to support this provisional change. Final change is subject to a completed Zoning Audit. Supporting discussion:  This was a targeted, surgical change pointed at only two areas ion the mixed -use section where no definition existed, The Corner having no standard for the density bonus and Downtown Extended having no standard for the height bonus.  No other districts or definitions were changed.  12.5% is a precedent already- in the Cherry Street district. Dissenting discussion:  Perhaps 12.5 % is too low as 25% is used elsewhere in the ordinance.  A proper mix might be best determined by measuring the benefit to the community and by looking through a cultural lens rather than a profit model. Additional discussion was held regarding part two of your memo: PLACE could not reach consensus to support this in its current form. Supporting discussion:  Relegating parking and parking structure entrances away from framework streets is a good idea and should be fleshed out on a neighborhood-specific basis.  Concealing surface lots and parking structures has merit. Dissenting Discussion:  This might be a strong companion piece to the mixed-use definition might be better situated as a spate piece.  More specific study is required to be sure the above listed notions are practicable throughout. Submitted: Mike Stoneking March 9, 2018 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Adoption of Resolution Presenters: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Scott Hendrix, Project Manager, Facilities Development Staff Contacts: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget & Management Analyst, Office of Budget and Performance Management Title: Fund Transfer for the Bypass Fire Station Project - $2,217,885 Project Background: As part of the F.Y. 2019 – 2023 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.), funding for the redevelopment of the Bypass Fire Station, in the amount of $3.7 million, was programmed in the C.I.P. in F.Y. 20. The proposed funding plan for this project included the consolidation of the $3.7 million programmed in F.Y. 20, with funding from three existing accounts, for a combined total project budget of $5.9 million. Fund Transfer: This request, if approved by Council, would transfer the existing funds, totaling $2,217,885 from three accounts, into one project account within the C.I.P. This request is in compliance with City Policy # 200-09 – Capital Improvement Program Procedures to consolidate project funding into one account. Once the consolidation of funds is in place, the procurement process for the design phase of the project will move forward. The transfer of funds would consist of the following:  $500,000 from CP-017 – Government Lump Sum account for F.Y. 17  $429,046 from P-00433 – Fontaine Fire Station (line item) remaining budget  $1,288,839 from P-00349 – Ridge Street Fire Station (line item) remaining budget Upon the appropriation of the $3.7 million in F.Y. 20 CIP funding, those funds will be loaded into the same consolidated account. Discussion: It is anticipated that an R.F.P. for design services will be drafted and issued in June of 2018. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This project supports City Council’s “Smart, Citizen-Focus Government” vision, and contributes to Strategic Plan Goals; 2: A Healthy and Safe City, and 5: A Well-managed and Responsive Organization. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: This has no impact on the General Fund, as the funding in this request will be transferred from funds previously appropriated in the CIP. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this resolution. Alternatives: Do not proceed with the project (the redevelopment of the Bypass Fire Station). Attachments: N/A RESOLUTION Funds Transfer for the Bypass Fire Station Project $2,217,885 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Facilities Development Division, is redeveloping the Bypass Fire Station; WHEREAS, the City needs to consolidate funding in the amount of $2,217,885 from three funding sources within Fund 426, as specified below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby transferred in the following manner: Transfer From $500,000 Fund: 426 WBS: CP-017 G/L Account: 599999 $429,046 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00433 G/L Account: 599999 $1,288,839 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00349 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To $2,217,885 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00988 G/L Account: 599999 This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Adoption of Ordinance after a Public Hearing (With Waiver of Second Reading) Presenter: Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson, Chief Deputy City Attorney Title: Ordinance Regulating Use of Explosives for Excavation and Demolition Activities Background: Recently it has come to the attention of city staff and city council that, when landowners or developers seek to use explosive devices as a means of excavation of land, or demolition of structures, it may be in the public interest to require a more comprehensive public review of the proposed blasting activity than is currently afforded by existing laws and regulations. Pursuant to Virginia Code §15.2-1113, a municipality is expressly authorized to regulate the use of any explosive substance. Further, pursuant to the Virginia Code §27-97 local governments are empowered to adopt regulations more restrictive, and more extensive in scope, than those in the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Discussion: Attached is a proposed ordinance which would require the owner of any land on which blasting is proposed in connection with excavation or demolition activities to seek a permit from the City Council. The City Council’s review of the application would include a public hearing, and would allow Council to review the details of a proposed blasting plan and safety measures specifically developed for use at a particular location. Any permit issued (or denied) by City Council following review of application materials, and review of information received in connection with a public hearing, would be IN ADDITION TO any permit required by the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. The attached proposed ordinance has been loosely modeled on another ordinance in effect in Virginia, and on information and inquiries found in other ordinances around the country. Community Engagement: A public hearing should be conducted by City Council prior to adopting this Ordinance. Budgetary Impact: This Ordinance will have no substantial impact on the City’s general fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council adopt the proposed ordinance, subject to any adjustments that Council may wish to make following input received at a public hearing. Alternatives: • Council could decide not to enact an ordinance such as this at all, leaving review of proposed blasting activities only to the administrative review process set forth within the Statewide Fire Prevention Code. • Council could decide not to waive the second reading of the Ordinance Attachments: Proposed Ordinance AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REORDAINING CHAPTER 5 (Building Regulations; Property Maintenance) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, 1990, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE VI REGULATING THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES FOR AND IN CONNECTION WITH EXCAVATION OF LAND OR DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that Chapter 5 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, is hereby amended and reordained by adding a new Article VI, to read as follows: CHAPTER 5. BUILDING REGULATIONS; PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ARTICLE VI. REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES Sec. 5-203. Purpose And Objectives. The purpose of this Article is to enumerate the policies of the City of Charlottesville for use in the review of applications seeking approval for the use of explosives for and in connection with construction and demolition activities within the City limits. Further, this chapter is enacted for the protection of persons and property owners from damage to life or property as a result of excavation or demolition by blasting, and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community by preventing the interruption of essential services resulting from the destruction of, disruption of, or damage to underground utility lines during excavation or demolition by blasting. Sec. 5-204. Scope. The scope of this chapter is intended to encompass: (a) all utility operators serving any portion of or maintaining any utility line within the City of Charlottesville, Virginia; and (b) all landowners and contractors engaged by landowners or developers to perform demolition or excavation on any private property, public rights of way, or public easements within the City of Charlottesville. Sec. 5-205. Definitions. As used in this Article: (a) “Blasting” means the use of an explosive for or in connection with excavation or demolition. (b) “Contractor” means any person, including a subcontractor, who contracts with an operator or the owner of public or private property, for the purpose of engaging in excavation, demolition, or blasting. (c) “Demolition” means the razing of any structure above the existing grade, or the demolition of any structure below the existing grade. (d) “Emergency” means any condition which may cause an interruption of essential services resulting from the destruction of, disruption of, or damage to underground utility lines. “Emergency” is classified as less severe than “hazardous”. (e) “Excavate” or “excavation” means any operation in which earth, rock, or other material in the grounds is moved, removed, or otherwise displaced by means of any tools, equipment, or explosives and includes, without limitation, grading, trenching, digging, ditching, dredging, drilling, auguring, tunneling, scraping, cable or pipe plowing and riving, wrecking, razing, rendering, moving, or removing any structure or mass of material, but not including the tilling of the soil for agricultural purposes. (f) “Hazardous” means any condition which may cause an interruption of essential services and, in addition, may result in death or injury to persons or property due to destruction of, disruption of, or damage to underground utility lines. “Hazardous” is classified as more severe than “emergency”. (g) “Mechanized equipment” means powered equipment used to excavate, and includes equipment used for plowing-in or pulling-in cable or pipe. (h) “Notify, notice or notification” means the completed delivery of information to the person to be notified and the receipt of same by such person to be notified within the time limits prescribed in this chapter. (i) “Notification center” means any organization among whose purpose is the dissemination to one or more operators of the notification of planned construction activities in a special area. For the purpose of this chapter, Miss Utility and/or the current holder of the one-call State Certification Center, shall be considered to be the notification center. (j) “Operator” means any person who furnishes or transports any of the following materials or services by means of a utility line: (1) Flammable, natural, toxic or corrosive gas; (2) Petroleum, petroleum products and hazardous liquids; (3) Electricity; (4) Sanitary sewer; (5) Communications; (6) Water; or (7) Cable television. (k) “Person” means any individual, partnership, association, corporation, state, subdivision or instrumentality of a state, or the legal representative thereof. (l) “Property owner” means any person who owns fee title to or leases a given area of land. (m) “Surface replacement” means the routine maintenance or limited replacement of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and similar structures, including patch-type road paving and street repairs. (n) “Utility line” means any underground conduit and its related facilities including pipe or cable, by which an operator furnishes or transports material or services. (o) “White lining” means the designation of the proposed limits of excavation or demolition with white paint by the contractor. (p) “Working days” means Monday through Friday, excluding, however, any public and legal holidays. Sec. 5-206. Applicability Of Existing Ordinances And Other Laws. No provision of this Article shall exempt any person from complying with the requirements and provisions of any existing laws, regulations, or ordinances, including, without limitation: Chapters 12 (Fire Prevention), 29 (Subdivisions), 31 (Utilities) and 34 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville; the statutes and regulations of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development/ Virginia Fire Services Board; and the statutes and regulations of the Office of Pipeline Safety of the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the U.S. Department of Labor. The duties and requirements imposed by all such other existing laws, regulations and ordinances shall be in addition to the duties and requirements imposed by the provisions of this Article. Sec. 5-207. Administration And Enforcement. This chapter shall be administered and enforced by the City Manager, or his or her designee, who may cause to be performed such tasks and inspections as he or she may deem reasonably necessary. Sec. 5-208. Demolition Or Excavation By Blasting; Prior Notice And Permit. (a) No landowner shall make or commence any blasting, nor shall any landowner allow any blasting to be made or commenced on his or her land, without first notifying the Office of the City Manager and obtaining a permit therefor. (b) Every notice served by any person to the Office of the City Manager shall contain or be accompanied by the following information: (1) The blasting contractor's name and telephone number; (2) The name of the landowner on whose land the proposed blasting is being done; (3) The date and approximate time blasting is to commence; (4) An engineering plan depicting and describing: (i) the nature and extent of the excavation or demolition by blasting (“work”); (ii) the location and approximate depth of proposed work; (iii) the topographic and geological conditions that will be disturbed by such excavation or demolition, based upon topographical and geological survey data, respectively; (iv) an engineering professional’s opinion as to whether, based on topographical and geological survey data, and the nature and extent of the excavation or demolition by blasting, any emergency or hazardous conditions could occur as a result of blasting. If so, the engineering plan shall also include a mitigation plan designed to eliminate the risk of potential emergency or hazardous condition(s), or to reduce such risk to an acceptable level; (v) a physical survey identifying the location of all utility lines owned or used by any operator within and adjacent to the parcel of land on which the blasting will occur, along with: the name and contact information for each operator; a detailed plan describing how the utility lines will be protected during the blasting; and evidence of written confirmation from each operator that the operator is aware of the blasting application to be presented to city council and has been given an opportunity to request a pre-blast survey of utility structures. (vi) a pre-blast survey log containing a list of structures and utility lines eligible for pre- blast survey and list of those that have already received pre-blast surveys; (vii) Applicant’s certification that it will pay all costs for pre-blasting seismic surveys of potentially affected properties, to be performed by a contractor engaged by the applicant but selected from a list of qualified firms provided by the City, with data from such surveys to be provided to property owners. (viii) written consent forms executed by the owner of every building, structure or utility line within one hundred (100) feet of any proposed blast, where each such written consent form, on its face, contains a certification of the blasting contractor that all blasting will conform to limits recommended by the U.S. Bureau of Mines Table of Scaled Distances. (ix) proof of insurance from the applicant as well as the blasting contractor, minimum (for each): General Aggregate, $5,000,000.00; $2,000,000.00, for each occurrence; $1,000,000.00 automobile liability; Workers Compensation, as required by Virginia law. (5) The blasting contractor's field representative or field contact, and field telephone number; (6) An affidavit by the applicant, averring that written notice of the application has been given by U.S. mail, first class, postage pre-paid, to every landowner within five hundred (500) feet of the parcel of land on which the proposed blasting would occur, with a copy of the written notice and a list of all such landowners and their addresses attached to such affidavit. The list of landowners shall be obtained by the applicant from the online tax assessor’s records of the City of Charlottesville. The written notice shall include the following information: (i) Notice of intent to conduct blasting, estimated duration of blasting activities; (ii) Name of the contractor who will perform the blasting activities (iii) Name and contact information for the blasting contractor’s liability insurance provider; (iv) Name of an independent firm approved by the Fire Marshal, which shall conduct seismographic monitoring of all blast(s) during blasting activities and which shall make reports thereof directly to the Fire Marshall, at the cost and expense of the person who has made application to the City under this Article; and written evidence that seismology equipment to be used has been calibrated and certified within 1 year of proposed blasting operation. (7) Any special remarks or information the applicant deems relevant to the considerations referenced in paragraph (c), following below. (c) Upon receipt of the notice and application materials referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) preceding above, the Office of the city Manager shall schedule a public hearing to be conducted at a regular meeting of the City Council, within sixty (60) days of the date the application is submitted. Notice of the date, time and location of the public hearing shall be given by newspaper advertisement, and by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, to every landowner within five hundred (500) feet of the parcel of land on which the proposed blasting would occur. Following conclusion of the public hearing, the city council will consider: (i) whether or not the proposed blasting presents an unreasonable danger to the life or health of any individual(s), or an unreasonable interference with the use or occupancy of adjacent property; (ii) whether or not, as a result of information received by council in connection with the public hearing, the blasting plan adequately takes into account unique topographical and geological conditions present in the vicinity of the proposed blasting; (iii) whether or not the insurance requirements referenced within this ordinance adequately cover the risks reasonably to be anticipated from the blasting; (iv) such other factors as the city council deems relevant for the protection of the welfare and safety of individuals and property within the vicinity of the blasting. City Council may either approve or deny a permit for the proposed blasting. Any permit may be subject to suitable regulations and safeguards approved by city council as conditions of a permit. The City does not, by granting any permit or by identifying regulations or safeguards for blasting activities, assume any responsibility or liability for such blasting activity. (d) No permit approved by City Council under paragraph (c), above, shall authorize any blasting, unless and until a separate permit has been obtained from the Fire Code Official, in accordance with applicable requirements of the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code, and related codes and standards. (e) The following documents shall be available for inspection at the site of any blasting, at all times during any blasting: (i) a copy of the approved permit from the Fire Code Official, (ii) a copy of the approved site plan or subdivision plan for a development, and (iii) a copy of the engineering plan required by paragraph (b)(4), above. (f) In the event of ongoing excavation or demolition by blasting, notification by a contractor as provided in subsection (b) hereof shall be required every ten working days and so long as said excavation or demolition is continuous all markings of underground utility lines remain clearly visible, as provided in Section 5-208(b)(4)(v). Sec. 5-209. Contractor Requirements; Demolition Or Excavation. (a) Any contractor performing excavation or demolition by blasting shall have an approved site plan and/or subdivision plan, as applicable, or an engineering plan, indicating the plan view of all known existing and proposed utility lines at the site during such excavation or demolition. (b) Any contractor performing excavation or demolition by blasting shall designate the proposed limits of such excavation or demolition: (i) within a survey submitted with the application (depicting the boundaries of the parcel(s) of land on which the excavation or blasting is proposed to occur, and containing a topographical survey of those parcel(s); and (ii) if a permit is approved, by white lining the affected area at the site. (c) The act of obtaining information or any approval as required by this Article shall not excuse any person making any excavation or demolition by blasting from doing so in a careful and prudent manner nor shall it excuse such person from liability for any damage resulting from his or her negligence. Sec. 5-210. Contractors; Hazardous And Emergency Procedures. (a) Communication between the job site and the contractor's base office shall be maintained at all times through the use of a two-way radio system or some other means approved by the City’s Fire Code Official. (b) When any person damages a utility line or the protective coating thereof, or accidentally exposes or severs a utility line during excavation or demolition by blasting, an emergency condition shall be deemed to exist and the operator of such utility line shall be directly notified at that time. (c) When any gas or flammable liquid utility line is severed, or damaged to the extent that there is escapement of its contents, a hazardous condition shall be deemed to exist and the operator of such utility line and the City’s Emergency Communications Center (Dial “911") shall be immediately notified. (d) Contractors shall display in plain sight on the instrument or control panel or the dashboard of all trucks and mechanized equipment operated by them, the current telephone number which is to be utilized to serve hazardous-condition notice as required by subsection (c) hereof. (e) The telephone numbers to be utilized in serving emergency-condition notice as required in subsection (b) hereof shall be located on the approved site plan, subdivision plan or engineering plan which is to be at the site during excavation or demolition as required by ___________. (f) It shall be unlawful to backfill around a damaged utility line, as described in subsection (b) or (c) hereof, until the operator of said utility line has been notified of such incident and has repaired the damage and/or has given clearance in writing to backfill. (g) During an emergency or hazardous condition, it shall be lawful to excavate, without using blasting, if notification as required in subsection (b) or (c) hereof is given as soon as reasonably possible. Sec. 5-211. Operators; Hazardous And Emergency Procedures. (a) All operators shall make available on a twenty-four hour basis adequate emergency response crew(s), including answering personnel, radio dispatchers, appliance servicemen and utility repair crews capable of performing all work tasks necessary to cope with emergency or hazardous situations. The number of emergency work crews shall be determined by the operator based upon reasonable response time (one hour estimated time or arrival to the emergency scene during other than work hours) and the number and frequency of experiences recorded. (b) All reports of hazardous and/or emergency conditions received by operators shall be reported immediately to the City’s Emergency Communications Center (Dial “911") and all reports of hazardous conditions received by the Emergency Communications Center, or the Charlottesville Fire Department shall be reported immediately to the appropriate operator. (c) The decision to shut off a utility line during a hazardous condition shall be jointly made by the Incident Commander, Charlottesville Fire Department and an authorized representative for the utility operator concerned. If time and circumstances require, the decision may be made by either the Incident Commander or the authorized utility operator representative, with immediate notification provided to the other and to the Emergency Communication Center and Charlottesville Fire Department. (d) Utility services interrupted under hazardous conditions, as referenced in subsection (d) hereof, may be restored by the authorized utility operator only after investigation and verification of safety by the Charlottesville Fire Department. Sec. 5-212. Penalties. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this Article, by doing a prohibited act, failing to perform a required act, or failing to perform permitted acts in the prescribed manner, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Each day a violation of this chapter shall continue shall constitute a separate offense. (b) If, during excavation or demolition by blasting, an underground utility line is damaged by any person who has failed to comply with any provision of this chapter, any permit(s) acquired through the City of Charlottesville to perform work related to said excavation or demolition (including permits for building, grading, blasting, plumbing, electrical and/or mechanical work) shall be revoked and any fees paid to the City for said permit(s) shall be forfeited. In order to continue work, a new application for permit(s) must be filed; plans of the proposed excavation or demolition by blasting must be re-examined; the location of all existing utility lines must be verified in writing by each operator having facilities in the area of proposed excavation or demolition; and new fees must be paid. (c) Any person who is convicted two or more times within a twelve-month period of violating any provision of this Article which resulted in damage to any existing utility line, shall be subject to suspension or revocation of any license(s) or permit(s) issued by the City of Charlottesville to perform related work for a period not to exceed twelve-months. Furthermore, no subsequent permits or licenses to perform said related work shall be issued to such convicted persons during that suspension or revocation period. (d) The operator of a utility line shall notify the City of Charlottesville of any action by a contractor that is deemed to be a violation of this chapter and that may result in a hazardous condition. Upon such notification, a representative of the City shall promptly inspect the work site and, if deemed necessary, require the contractor to stop work until compliance with this chapter is verified by the City or operator of the line. Secs. 5-213 - 5-218. Reserved. This page intentionally left blank. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Consideration of a Special Use Permit Presenter: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Staff Contact: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner, Neighborhood Development Services Title: SP18-00007 – Dairy Central Phases 2 and 3 Background Applicant Request Ashley Davies of Williams Mullen, acting as agent for Dairy Holdings LLC has submitted an application for a special use permit on 4.386 acres of property located at 946 Grady Avenue. The special use permit is a request for additional height and residential density. Currently, the property is limited to 43 dwelling units per acre by right and a maximum 50 feet in height. The applicant has requested the maximum residential density be increased to 60 dwelling units per acre and up to 65 feet in height. In conjunction with this request, the applicant has requested modification of the streetwall regulations along 10th Street SW and West Street. 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 1). 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 34-541(11) – Mixed use districts – Intent and description The intent of the Central City Corridor district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects 1 currently found in those areas. The district allows single use development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district. • 2013 Comprehensive Plan The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Mixed Use. Mixed-Use areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “are intended to be zones where the City encourages development of a moderate or high intensity, and where a large variety of uses will be permitted, including many commercial uses, residential uses, and some limited research and manufacturing where appropriate.” Discussion Overview of Staff Analysis Staff found the request in line with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and that the additional residential density and height are appropriate on the site. Staff recommends that the application be approved with conditions listed in the staff report. Entrance Corridor Review The Entrance Corridor Review Board considered the Special Use Permit request at their meeting on March 13, 2018, and took the following action: Mr. Lahendro moved to find that the proposed special use permit to allow additional density and height at 946 Grady Avenue will not have an adverse impact on the Central City Entrance Corridor district on Preston Avenue. Mr. Keesecker seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 to approve the motion. Mr. Santoski and Mr. Clayborne were not present. Alignment with City Council’s Vision Areas and Strategic Plan The City Council Vision statement on Economic Sustainability states that “The City has facilitated significant mixed and infill development within the City.” The City Council Vision statement on Quality Housing Opportunities for All states “Our neighborhoods retain a core historic fabric while offering housing that is affordable and attainable for people of all income levels, racial backgrounds, life stages, and abilities. Our 2 neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers.” The City Council Strategic Plan Goal 3.1 is to “Engage in robust and context sensitive urban planning and implementation”. Community Engagement The applicant held numerous meetings with members of the public and formed a committee of nearby residents to advise them on the application. The details of the community engagement process are included in the applicant’s application materials. The Planning Commission and City Council held a joint public hearing on this application at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting on June 12, 2018. Seven members of the public spoke at the public hearing. The speakers commended the applicant on their community engagement, and were generally in support of the project; but raised concerns about the impact the development would have on traffic in the 10th and Page neighborhood and the potential for increased demand on on-street parking in the neighborhood. The speakers also raised the importance of the design of the building and how it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. Budgetary Impact A major Mixed-use Building at 946 Grady Ave, including 251 rental apartment units, 60,000 square feet of Class A Office space, 45,000 square feet of retail space and associated structured parking is expected to generate an estimated - $1,480,000 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 $197,000 in BPOL and permitting fees. The parcel involved in this project currently contributes approximately $130,000 in city revenue annually. Recommendation The Planning Commission discussed this application at their meeting on June 12, 2018. The Commission generally supported the request but added conditions to their recommendation to make aspects of the building and site design that they found desirable binding upon the project. Several Commissioners expressed concern about the traffic impact around the site, and advocated that the applicant and the City take steps to shepherd the outgoing traffic from the site towards Preston Avenue. 3 The Commission took the following action: Ms. Dowell moved to recommend approval of this amendment to special use permit SP-18- 00002, subject to conditions, because I find that approval of this request is required for the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice. My motion includes a recommendation for the conditions referenced in the staff report dated, subject to the following revisions: 1. As used within these conditions, the term “applicant shall include the applicant’s successors and assigns. 2. The design, height, density and other characteristics of the Development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials dated May 22, 2018, submitted to the City and in connection with SP-18- 00002 (“Application”). Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with the requirements of a certificate of appropriateness issued by the City’s BAR, modified to comply with the requirements of entrance corridor review by the City’s Entrance Corridor Review Board, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any substantial change of the Development that is inconsistent with the Application shall require a modification of this SUP. Specific design features that should be maintained include, but are not limited to: a. Ground floor openings on 10th Street. b. Courtyards accessed directly off West Street with entrances into the building directly off the courtyards. c. The parking garage set low and screened from view on West Street d. Landscaping and large street trees 3. Along 10th Street NW the 5th floor of the structure shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the face of the building for floors 1-4, as shown on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 Special Use Permit Exhibits, dated May 22, 2018. 4. Along West Street the 5th floor of the structures shall be stepped back a minimum of 45 feet from the property line, as shown on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 Special Use Permit Exhibits, dated May 22, 2018. 5. Phase 3 is subject to future consideration of the Entrance Corridor Review Board specifically to address articulation and materials of the building similar to Phase 2. 6. Provision of 20 affordable residential units as per application submission for a term limit of no less than 10 years. 7. In conjunction with the City Traffic Engineer, work to direct traffic away from the adjacent neighborhood and toward Preston Avenue. 8. Subject to review by the City Traffic Engineer, southbound traffic on Wood Street shall be right turn only onto West Street. 4 9. Phases 2 and 3 have a minimum of 90% residential uses. 10. Review intersections and crosswalks within the development and the surrounding area with the City Traffic Engineer with input from the community at an on-site meeting. This information shall be included with the final site plan for Phases 2 and 3 of the project. 11. Landscaping shall be as provided in the plan titled “Phase 2 Sketch” and submitted in Council Chambers at the public hearing and dated June 12, 2018. . Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The Commission voted 6-1 in favor of the motion. Ms. Green opposed the motion. 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) Staff Report (3) Application Materials, dated May 22, 2018 (4) Phase 2 Sketch, dated June 12, 2018 5 SP18-00002 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A D D I T I O N A L B U I L D I N G H E I G H T A N D INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 946 GRADY AVENUE (“DAIRY CENTRAL”) WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code § 34-780 Dairy Holdings LLC ("Applicant") has requested a special use permit for property having an address of 946 Grady Avenue (known as “Dairy Central”),further identified on City Tax Map 31 as Parcel 60, and consisting of approximately 4.386 acres (hereinafter, the "Subject Property"); WHEREAS, the purpose of the requested special use permit is to allow increased residential density (up to 60 dwelling units per acre), to obtain modification of applicable streetwall regulations, and an additional 15 feet of allowable building height, all to facilitate a specific mixed-use development described within the materials accompanying City application number SP-00002 (the “Proposed Development”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is zoned "CC" (Central City Corridor) and, pursuant to §34-780 of the City Code, the requested increased density is allowable by special use permit; pursuant to §34-777(2), the requested additional building height is allowable by special use permit; and pursuant to §34-162, the requested modification of streetwall regulations is allowable in connection with the granting of a special use permit and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing on this application was held before the City Council and Planning Commission on June 12, 2018, following notice to the public and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, based on the information and materials submitted by the Applicant as part of its application, the staff report prepared by Neighborhood Development Services staff, the factors set forth within City Code § 34-157, and the comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the Special Use Permit application should be approved, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of the factors set forth within City Code §34-157, this Council finds that, for this specific Development, as proposed, additional residential density, building height, and streetwall modifications are appropriate, subject to certain reasonable conditions, based on the representations, information, and materials included within Applicant's application materials; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia as follows: 1. Specific Development—a Special Use Permit is hereby granted to authorize the following Development on the Subject Property: Page 1 of 3 SP18-00002 A mixed use development to be completed in four phases: Phase 1: renovation and expansion of the Monticello Dairy Building, with (i) maximum building height 45.7 feet, and (ii) use and occupancy of said building to include up to 70% GFA as office use; 20% GFA for a restaurant operation; and 10% GFA for use as retail space and operation of a brewery use; Phase 2: establishment of a mixed-use building at the corner of 10th St., NW and West Street, with (i) maximum building height 65 feet, (ii) use and occupancy of said building to include retail space, in an amount no less than 7% GFA of the building, and 175 dwelling units, specifically including no fewer than 20 affordable dwelling units (as defined in City Code §34-12 (c), with affordability over a term of no fewer than 10 years); Phase 3: establishment of a multifamily dwelling fronting on West Street, with (i) maximum building height 65 feet, and (ii) said multifamily dwelling to include 6,100 square feet GFA and at least 75 dwelling units; and Phase 4: establishment of a building fronting on Preston Avenue, with (i) minimum building height 35 feet, and maximum building height 50 feet, and (ii) use and occupancy of said building to include commercial uses and structured parking. 2. Ninety percent (90%) of the gross floor area of the buildings established in Phases 2 and 3 of the Development shall consist of dwelling units used for residential occupancy. 3. The site layout, design, building height, residential density, and other characteristics of the Development shall remain the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials dated May 22, 2018, submitted to the City and in connection with SP- 18-00002. Except as the characteristics of the Development may subsequently be modified to comply with (i) the requirements of a certificate of appropriateness issued by the City’s BAR, (ii) the requirements of an approval granted by the City’s Entrance Corridor Review Board, (iii) as necessary for compliance with any of these SUP Conditions, and/or (iv) as necessary for compliance with zoning regulations not modified by this Special Use Permit, any material change of the Development as represented within the application materials shall require a modification of this SUP. Without limiting the foregoing, the following design features shall be deemed material aspects of the Development that may not be modified by any administrative approval: a. Ground floor openings on 10th Street; b. Courtyards accessed directly off West Street with entrances into the building directly off the courtyards; c. The parking garage set low and screened from view on West Street; and d. Landscaping and large street trees. 4. Along 10th Street NW, the fifth floor of any building shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the façade building for floors 1-4, as depicted in more detail on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 special use permit application material exhibits dated May 22, 2018. Page 2 of 3 SP18-00002 5. Along West Street, the fifth floor of any building shall be stepped back a minimum of 45 feet from the property line, as shown on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 special use permit application material exhibits dated May 22, 2018. 6. The building proposed for construction in Phase 3 is subject to future review by the Entrance Corridor Review Board, and such review will specifically include articulation and building materials, which shall be similar to those of the building constructed within Phase 2. 7. The site layout depicted on any final site plan shall be designed to direct traffic away from the adjacent neighborhood, and toward Preston Avenue, subject to requirements and approvals of the City’s Traffic Engineer. 8. The site layout depicted on any final site plan shall be designed to ensure that southbound traffic on Wood Street shall be right turn only onto West Street, subject to requirements and approvals of the City’s Traffic Engineer. 9. Prior to the filing of any application seeking approval of a final site plan, the developer shall conduct an on-site meeting to which members of the adjacent neighborhood shall be invited, at which the developer and residents will review the design and configuration of the intersections and crosswalks within and adjacent to the Development, and the developer shall seek input from the neighborhood residents as to changes that might be desirable, consistent with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Input that the Traffic Engineer verifies can be included consisted with applicable standards shall be included with the final site plan for Phases 2 and 3 of the Development. 10. Landscaping shall be as provided in the plan titled “Phase 2 Sketch” that was presented to the Planning Commission at the June 12, 2018 hearing (the sketch is also dated June 12, 2018). 11. The terms and conditions of this special use permit shall be binding upon the current landowner, and landowner’s successors and assigns. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL JOINT PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF MEETING: June 12, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP18-00002 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Presenter: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Date of Staff Report: March 29, 2018 (Revised May 30, 2018) Applicant: Ashley Davies, Williams Mullen, acting as agent Current Property Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Tax Map/Parcel # and Street Addresses: Tax Map 31, Parcel 60 (946 Grady Avenue) Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 4.386 acres Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed-Use Current Zoning Classification: Central City Corridor with Individually Protected Property and Entrance Corridor Overlays Tax Status: The City Treasurer’s office confirms that the taxes for the properties were current as of the drafting of this report. Applicant’s Request Special Use Permit for: 1. Height up to 65 feet, per City Code Sec. 34-777(2), and modification of streetwall regulations, per City Code 34-778 2. Density up to 60 dwelling units per acre, per City Code Sec. 34-780(b) 1 Vicinity Map Background/ Details of Proposal The Applicant has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit in conjunction with a site plan for a new mixed-use development located at 946 Grady Avenue. The Property has additional street frontage on 10th Street NW, Preston Avenue and West Street. The proposed development plan shows a four phase project broken down as follows: Phase 1: Renovation and expansion of the existing Monticello Dairy Building on Grady Avenue. 58,283 square feet of office space, 7,076 square feet of retail, 1,369 square foot brewing operation, and 16,643 square foot restaurant operation with associated seating. Maximum Building height of 45.7 feet. Phase 2: New 202,305 square foot mixed use building at the corner of 10th Street NW and West Street. 175 residential units and 1,358 square feet of commercial retail space. Maximum building height of 65 feet. 20 of the residential units in this building would meet the City’s definition of affordable housing. Phase 3: New 61,000 square foot residential building on West Street. 75 residential units. Maximum building height of 65 feet. Phase 4: New 114,000 square foot commercial building with structured parking on Preston Avenue. The plan for the development shows 471 parking spaces over the entire site. 2 The Central City Corridor zoning permits a maximum height of 50 feet by right, and 80 feet by special use permit. The maximum density permitted by right in a mixed-use development is 43 units per acre, and up to 120 units per acre by special use permit. Land Use and Comprehensive Plan EXISTING LAND USE; ZONING AND LAND USE HISTORY: The properties are currently used as commercial and light industrial uses, along with surface parking lots. Section 34-541 of the City Code describes the purpose and intent of the Water Street Corridor zoning district: “The intent of the Central City Corridor district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects currently found in those areas. The district allows single use development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district.” Zoning History: In 1929, the property was mostly zoned A-1 Residential, with some B-1 Business. In 1949, the property was zoned B-1 Business. In 1958, the property was zoned B-3 Business. In 1976, the property was zoned B-3 Business. In 1991, the property was zoned B-3 Business. In 2003, the property was rezoned to Central City Corridor. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS North: Immediately north of the property are several single-story commercial structures zoned Central City Corridor with Entrance Corridor Overlay. These buildings are used for retail and restaurant uses. One block further north is the Rose Hill neighborhood. These properties are zoned R-1S Residential. South: Immediately south of the property are multi-story structures that house a mix of uses. These properties are zoned B-3 Business and R-1S Residential. Further south is the 10th and Page neighborhood, which is zoned R-1S. East: Immediately adjacent to the east is a commercial building zoned Central City Corridor. Further east are commercial properties along Preston Avenue. These properties are zoned Central City Corridor with Entrance Corridor Overlay. West: Immediately adjacent to the west are several one and two-story structures that are used for residential purposes. The lone exception is the property at the corner of Grady Avenue and 10th Street NW, which is a church under ownership of the applicant. These properties are zoned R-1S Residential. 3 NATURAL RESOURCE AND CULTURAL FEATURES OF SITE: The site does not have any notable natural resources. The site is almost entirely impervious and is made up of buildings and surface parking. The Monticello Dairy Building is designated as an Individually Protected Property due to its significance as a historic structure. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: The Comprehensive Plan is generally supportive of high density, mixed-use developments along the major corridors in the City, especially along Preston Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan also contains language that supports creation of housing opportunities for all residents of the City. Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan places a strong emphasis on supporting development that is multi-modal, particularly developments that encourage biking and walking. Specific items from the Comprehensive Plan that support the proposal are as follows: Land Use • When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. (Land Use, 2.1) • Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities and amenities and green spaces. (Land Use, 2.3) • Enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers and create opportunities for others in areas where they will enhance adjacent residential area. Provide opportunities for nodes of activity to develop, particularly along mixed-use corridors. (Land Use, 3.2) Economic Sustainability • Continue to encourage private sector developers to implement plans from the commercial corridor study. (Economic Sustainability, 6.6) Housing • Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. (Housing, 3.3) • Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing. (Housing, 3.6) • Offer a range of housing options to meet the needs of Charlottesville’s residents, including those presently underserved, in order to create vibrant residential areas or reinvigorate existing ones. (Housing, Goal 7) • Ensure that the City’s housing portfolio offers a wide range of choices that are integrated and balanced across the City to meet multiple goals including: increased sustainability, walkability, bikeability, and use of public transit, augmented support for families with children, fewer pockets of poverty, sustained local commerce and decreased student vehicle use. (Housing, Goal 8) • Encourage mixed-use and mixed-income housing developments. (Housing, 8.1) 4 • Encourage housing development where increased density is desirable and strive to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes, and commercial services. (Housing, 8.3) • Promote redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. (Housing, 8.5) Transportation • Encourage a mix of uses in priority locations, such as along identified transit corridors and other key roadways, to facilitate multimodal travel and increase cost effectiveness of future service. (Transportation, 2.4) • Promote urban design techniques, such as placing parking behind buildings, reducing setbacks and increasing network connectivity, to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape and to reduce speeds on high volume roadways. (Transportation, 2.6) • Encourage the development of transit-oriented/supportive developments. (Transportation 6.6) Historic Preservation and Urban Design • Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the City. (Historic Preservation and Urban Design, 1.3) Specific items from the Comprehensive Plan that do not support the proposal are as follows: Land Use • When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. (Land Use, 2.1) Housing • Consider the range of affordability proposed in rezoning and special use permit applications, with emphasis on provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. (Housing, 3.5) Public and Other Comments Received PUBLIC COMMENTS The City held a preliminary site plan review conference for Phase 1 of the project on November 15, 2017. Four members of the public attended along with the applicant. The applicant held a public meeting regarding their SUP request on January 29, 2018. 58 members of the public signed in at the meeting. The primary focus of the meeting was affordable housing, but the applicant notes that many other topics were covered, and that the community 5 meeting space located in Phase 1 of the project was created in part because of feedback from the neighborhood about the lack of meeting space in the 10th and Page area. COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ERB The Entrance Corridor Review Board considered the Special Use Permit request at their meeting on March 13, 2018, and took the following action: Mr. Lahendro moved to find that the proposed special use permit to allow additional density and height at 946 Grady Avenue will not have an adverse impact on the Central City Entrance Corridor district on Preston Avenue. Mr. Keesecker seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 to approve the motion. Mr. Santoski and Mr. Clayborne were not present. IMPACT ON CITY SERVICES: Public Works (Water and Sewer): Staff does not anticipate any problems with serving the projected demands. The site plan will require a letter of acceptance from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority prior to final approval. Public Works (Storm Drainage/Sewer): The proposed project will develop an area of land that is currently almost entirely impervious surface, and the resulting development will be required to provide Stormwater management and treatment in accordance with current state regulations and engineering standards. The applicant is required to provide a stormwater management plan as part of a final site plan submission. A preliminary site plan is required to detail the developer’s “Stormwater concept” prepared by a professional engineer or landscape architect, in accordance with current provisions of City Code 34-34-827(d)(9). Staff Analysis and Recommendation ANALYSIS Assessment of the Development as to its relation to public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or GOOD ZONING PRACTICE: The City has zoned Preston Avenue to encourage mixed-uses and higher residential densities, as Preston has substantial transportation infrastructure that can support increased intensity of use. This is especially true of the existing pedestrian infrastructure along Preston, and the fact that a Charlottesville Area Transit bus line currently serves the area. Assessment of Specific Potential Impacts of the Proposed Development: 1. Massing and scale of the Project, taking into consideration existing conditions and conditions anticipated as a result of approved developments in the vicinity. 6 The site is bordered on two sides by R-1S zoning that permits a maximum height of 35 feet. The Central City Corridor permits a maximum by-right height of 50 feet, which serves as a transition from the lower heights of the R-1S zones to the more intense development desired along a major corridor like Preston Avenue. The applicant’s request for additional height is mitigated by a proposed condition from the applicant of an increased stepback requirement along the West Street frontage. The applicant has included additional details regarding the shading caused by the additional height requested. 2. Traffic or parking congestion on adjacent streets. The proposed project will impact traffic on the streets adjacent to the building, especially 10th Street NW. The project will also continue to stress the Grady/Preston/10th intersection that already has been identified as a problematic intersection. The SUP request does not result in a marked increase in traffic over the by right limits of development on the site. 3. Noise, lights, dust, odor, vibration The proposed project represents a use that is similar to surrounding uses in terms of impacts from lights, dust, odor and vibration. Vibration from parking cars will be internal to the site. The lighting external to the building will be required to meet the City’s lighting regulations. 4. Displacement of existing residents or businesses The proposal will displace any existing businesses as the existing structure in Phase 1 is renovated. The remaining phases would not result in any displacement, as these phases impact parking lots, or business operations that have already relocated. 5. Ability of existing community facilities in the area to handle additional residential density and/or commercial traffic This proposed residential use will not present an undue burden on community facilities, although the construction of the residential portion of the project may increase demand on the facilities in Washington Park. Additionally, discussions with the Superintendent of Schools have indicated that new apartment complexes in the City are one of several factors that have caused an increase in school enrollment, as the new apartments attract renters currently in low-density residential areas of the City, and the vacated units are backfilled by families with school age children. 6. Impact (positive or negative) on availability of affordable housing 7 The proposed project would increase the availability of affordable housing, as the property is currently not used for residential purposes, and the applicant is proposing to include on-site affordable units to meet the requirements of the City’s Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the impacts associated with the increased density and height in the special use permit request can be accommodated by the site and recommends that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. As used within these conditions, the term “applicant shall include the applicant’s successors and assigns. 2. The design, height, density and other characteristics of the Development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials dated January 23, 2018, submitted to the City and in connection with SP- 18-00002 (“Application”). Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with the requirements of a certificate of appropriateness issued by the City’s BAR, modified to comply with the requirements of entrance corridor review by the City’s Entrance Corridor Review Board, or by any other provision(s) of these SUP Conditions, any substantial change of the Development that is inconsistent with the Application shall require a modification of this SUP. 3. Along 10th Street NW the 5th floor of the structure shall be stepped back a minimum of 10 feet from the face of the building for floors 1-4, as shown on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 Special Use Permit Exhibits, dated May 22, 2018. 4. Along West Street the 5th floor of the structures shall be stepped back a minimum of 45 feet from the property line, as shown on sheet 9 of the Dairy Central Phase 2 and 3 Special Use Permit Exhibits, dated May 22, 2018. Attachments 1. Copy of City Code Sections 34-157 (General Standards for Issuance) and 34-162 (Exceptions and modifications as conditions of permit) 2. Copy of City Code Section 34-541 (Mixed-Use Districts – Intent and Description) 3. Suggested Motions 4. Larger Vicinity Map 5. Application and Supporting documentation from the Applicant a. Application and Narrative b. SUP Design Package dated May 22, 2018 i. http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61929 ii. http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=61931 8 Attachment 1 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. 9 (b) Any resolution adopted by city council to grant a special use permit shall set forth any reasonable conditions which apply to the approval. Sec. 34-162. Exceptions and modifications as conditions of permit. (a) In reviewing an application for a special use permit, the city council may expand, modify, reduce or otherwise grant exceptions to yard regulations, standards for higher density, parking standards, and time limitations, provided: (1) Such modification or exception will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this division, the zoning district regulations under which such special use permit is being sought; and (2) Such modification or exception is necessary or desirable in view of the particular nature, circumstances, location or situation of the proposed use; and (3) No such modification or exception shall be authorized to allow a use that is not otherwise allowed by this chapter within the zoning district in which the subject property is situated. (b) The planning commission, in making its recommendations to city council concerning any special use permit application, may include comments or recommendations regarding the advisability or effect of any modifications or exceptions. (c) The resolution adopted by city council to grant any special use permit shall set forth any such modifications or exceptions which have been approved. 10 Attachment 2 Sec. 34-541. Mixed use districts—Intent and description. (1) Downtown Corridor. The intent of the Downtown Corridor district is to provide for a mixture of commercial and residential uses, and encourage such development by right, according to standards that will ensure harmony with the existing commercial environment in the city's downtown area. Ground-floor uses facing on primary streets should be commercial in nature. The area within this zoning district is the entertainment and employment center of the community and the regulations set forth within this district are designed to provide appropriate and convenient housing for persons who wish to reside in proximity to those activities. Within the Downtown Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: All streets are primary. Linking streets: None. (2) Downtown Extended Corridor. Historically, the areas within the Downtown Extended district contained manufacturing uses dependent upon convenient access to railroad transportation. In more recent times, use patterns within this area are similar to those within the Downtown district. The intent of this district is to encourage an inter-related mixture of high-density residential and commercial uses harmonious with the downtown business environment, within developments that facilitate convenient pedestrian and other links to the Downtown area. Within the Downtown Extended district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Garrett Street, Monticello Avenue, 6th Street, Market Street, Carlton Road and 10th Street, N.E. Linking streets: Avon Street, Dice Street, 1st Street, 4th Street, Gleason Street, Goodman Street, Oak Street, and Ware Street. (3) North Downtown Corridor. The Downtown North Corridor district is the historic center of the City of Charlottesville, and contains many historic structures. In more recent years this area has also developed as the heart of the city's legal community, including court buildings and related law and professional offices, and commercial and retail uses supporting those services. Within this area, residential uses have been established both in single-use and in mixed-use structures. Many former single-family dwellings have been converted to office use. The regulations for this district are intended to continue and protect the nature and scale of these existing patterns of development. Within the Downtown North Corridor district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: 8th Street, N.E. (between High Street and Jefferson Street), 5th Street, N.E., 1st Street, 4th Street, N.E., High Street, Jefferson Street, Market Street, 9th Street, 9th Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.E., 2nd Street, N.W., 7th Street, N.E., 6th Street, N.E., and 3rd Street, N.E. Linking streets: East Jefferson Street (east of 10th Street, N.E.), 8th Street, 11th Street, N.E., Lexington Street, Locust Street, Maple Street, Sycamore Street. 11 (4) West Main North Corridor. The West Main North district is established to provide low-intensity mixed-use development at a scale that respects established patterns of commercial and residential development along West Main Street and neighborhoods adjacent to that street. When compared with the area further south along West Main Street, lots within this area are smaller and older, existing buildings (many of them historic in character) have been renovated to accommodate modern commercial uses. Within this district, established buildings are located in close proximity to the street on which they front, and one (1) of the primary goals of this district is to provide a uniform street wall for pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial uses. Within the West Main Street North district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: 4th Street, 14th Street, 10th Street, Wertland Street, and West Main Street. Linking streets: Cream Street, Commerce Street, 8th Street, Elsom Street, 7th Street, 6th Street, 10½ Street and, 12th Street. (5) West Main South Corridor. Property on the south side of West Main Street are much deeper, and generally larger in size, than those to the north, and established non-commercial uses typically are separated from adjacent residential neighborhoods by railroad tracks and street rights-of-way. The purpose of this zoning district is to encourage pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development, at an intensity slightly greater than that to the north of West Main. The permitted uses and building heights, those allowed by-right and by special permit, respect the scenic character of the West Main Street corridor. Within the West Main Street South district, the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Jefferson Park Avenue, 9th/10th Connector, Ridge Street, 7th Street, and West Main Street. Linking streets: Dice Street, 11th Street, 5th Street, 4th Street, and 7th Street. (6) Cherry Avenue Corridor. This zoning classification establishes a district designed to encourage conservation of land resources, minimize automobile travel, and promote employment and retail centers in proximity to residential uses. It permits increased development on busier streets without fostering a strip-commercial appearance. It is anticipated that development will occur in a pattern consisting of ground-floor commercial uses, with offices and residential uses located on upper floors. This district is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented development, with buildings located close to and oriented towards the sidewalk areas along primary street frontages. Within the Cherry Avenue Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Cherry Avenue, 9th/10th Connector. Linking streets: 4th St., 5th St., Delevan St., Estes St., Grove St., King St., Nalle St., 9th St., 6th St., 6½ St., 7th St. (7) High Street Corridor. The areas included within this district represent a section of High Street that has historically developed around medical offices and support services, as well as neighborhood- oriented service businesses such as auto repair shops and restaurants. The regulations within this district encourage a continuation of the scale and existing character of uses established within this district, and are intended to facilitate infill development of similar uses. Within the High Street corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: 12 Primary streets: East High Street and Meade Avenue. Linking streets: 11th Street, Gillespie Avenue, Grace Street, Grove Avenue, Hazel Street, Moore's Street, Orange Street, Riverdale Drive, Stewart Street, Sycamore Street, Ward Avenue, and Willow Street. (8) Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district. The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor district is to establish a zoning classification for the Fontaine and Belmont commercial areas that recognize their compact nature, their pedestrian orientation, and the small neighborhood nature of the businesses. This zoning district recognizes the areas as small town center type commercial areas and provides for the ability to develop on small lots with minimal parking dependent upon pedestrian access. The regulations recognize the character of the existing area and respect that they are neighborhood commercial districts located within established residential neighborhoods. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bainbridge St., Carlton Ave., Douglas Ave., Fontaine Ave., Garden St., Goodman St., Hinton Ave., Holly St., Lewis St., Maury Ave., Monticello Rd., and Walnut St. Linking streets: None. (9) Highway Corridor district. The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto oriented than the mixed use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Bent Creek Road, Carlton Rd., Emmet Street, 5th Street, Harris Road, Hydraulic Road, Monticello Ave., and Seminole Trail. Linking streets: Angus Road, East View Street, Holiday Drive, India Road, Keystone Place, Knoll Street, Linden Avenue, Line Drive, Michie Drive, Mountain View Street, Seminole Circle, and Zan Road. (10) Urban Corridor. The intent of the Urban Corridor district is to continue the close-in urban commercial activity that has been the traditional development patterns in these areas. Development in this district is both pedestrian and auto oriented, but is evolving to more of a pedestrian center development pattern. The regulations provide for both a mixture of uses or single use commercial activities. It encourages parking located behind the structure and development of a scale and character that is respectful to the neighborhoods and university uses adjacent. Within this district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: Barracks Road, Emmet Street, and Ivy Road. Linking streets: Arlington Boulevard, Cedars Court, Copeley Drive, Copeley Road, Earhart Street, Massie Road, Meadowbrook Road, Millmont Street and Morton Drive. (11) Central City Corridor. The intent of the Central City Corridor district is to facilitate the continued development and redevelopment of the quality medium scale commercial and mixed use projects currently found in those areas. The district allows single use 13 development, but encourages mixed use projects. The regulations are designed to encourage use of and emphasize proximity to natural features or important view sheds of natural features. Development allowed is of a scale and character that is appropriate given the established development that surrounds the district. Within the Central Corridor district the following streets shall have the designations indicated: Primary streets: East High Street, Harris Street, Long Street, Preston Avenue, Rose Hill Drive, 10th Street, Preston Avenue, and River Road. Linking streets: Albemarle Street, Booker Street, Caroline Avenue, Dale Avenue, 8th Street, Forest Street, 9th Street, and West Street. (12) Water Street Corridor District. The intent of the Water Street Corridor District is to provide for a mix of commercial, retail and entertainment uses in a way that complements and supports the Downtown Pedestrian Mall area. As the Downtown Pedestrian Mall develops, the natural spillover will be to this area. While not a complete pedestrian zone, it contains many characteristics thereof. Development therefore should blend the pedestrian scale with a slightly more automobile oriented feel to achieve this supportive mixed-use environment. Primary streets: All. Linking streets: None. (13) South Street Corridor District. Adjacent to the downtown area and wedged against the railroad tracks is a small grouping of large historic homes, many of which have been converted to offices and/or apartments. In order to preserve the rich character and style of these few remaining structures from another era, the South Street Corridor District has been created. This district is intended to preserve the historic pedestrian scale, recognizing the importance of this area to the history of the downtown area. Primary streets: South Street. Linking streets: None. (14) Corner District. The Corner District is established to provide low-intensity missed-use development to primarily serve the area surrounding the University of Virginia. It encourages development at a scale that respects the established character of the historic commercial area adjacent to the central grounds of the University. Within the district two- and three-story buildings front the streets establishing a pedestrian scale for retail and commercial uses. Primary streets: University Avenue, West Main Street, Wertland Street, Elliewood Avenue 13th Street and 14th Street. Linking streets: Chancellor Street, 12th Street, 12½ Street and 13th Street. 14 Attachment 3 Approval without any conditions: I move to recommend approval of this amendment to special use permit SP-18-00002 as requested, because I find that approval of this request is required for the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice. OR Approval with conditions: I move to recommend approval of this amendment to special use permit SP-18-00002, subject to conditions, because I find that approval of this request is required for the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice. My motion includes a recommendation for the conditions referenced in the staff report dated, subject to the following revisions: [List desired revisions] Denial Options: I move to recommend denial of this application for an amendment to the special use permit; 15 Vi cini ty Map — 946Grady Aven ue WE S T W RU OO D R D GB LN FE Y PL Y RD CK O N GB ML DA RU HE E HARDW OOD AV LL BAR Y RD AV AV E E LL AUG USTA ST E PL AB B C GREENWA W OUR N LA AM HE TU R ST ST DR TRIPPER CT PL MADISO N AVE ON MADISO N AVE STE PR Murray W ashi n gto n Park J ack so n P.Burley RI W VA TN N NA CY AV S NT W E TH ROSSER AVE E HI TN W AN 16 TN NA HS GO CO AV HS 15T RD NC E W ON 13T AV O W TN RD NW E TN AV /2 S DR ST ST E HS ST Ven able LL LE VIR GR 1 H ADY ST R 12T HI G AR 10 11T INI KE AA AVE HE SE ST CH EM VE O NR 946 Grady Avenue RE RO AR BO B Y AL LT FO AV ON E AV NW WE JO HN L ugo - McGi n n ess ST ST E ST ST ST IS H 14T RR NW SAD HA L ER PR ST ST E DA PAO AN ST LE H PA LI S O 9T G ES D N AV T ER W T AV E N SO E ST N NW ST H 8T ST H WERT 10T LAND NW W ST R ST RD W ST N D W ST N HA H E 7T IR LLY ST N RD YD I NT 13TH R MC HO W /2 12TH 12 1 ST N W ST N E RD /2 ST BRO D W BLV 10 1 NS 4TH M SW T R EA W INTI StarrHi ll WN ST ST S CR LE E S tarrHi ll exp an si on RO E MC H ST 11T 9TH B ELT RIDG WM Do wn to wn Mall W A IN EV EST ST ST S E S ST L DR OS PEL CRIS RO 7TH Map By:Z Pro j ecti ack L DataSo urce:Ci on I nf ofto n ,NDS,Ci orm ation :L ty ofCharlottesvi ty ofCharlottesvilleSDE3/ am bert Co n f 29/ lle 3/ 2018 o rm al Co n i 29/ 2018 c,NAD83,Vi rgi niaStatePlan eSouth [ This p ro duct i sfo rgen eral inf o rm ati o n on ly an dshall n o t beusedf o rdesi gn , 0 0. 05 0. 1Mi le m o dif i cation ,o rco n structi o n .T hereis n o guaran teeo fcom p leten ess o r accuracy.T heCi ty assum es n o liabili ty arisin gfro m useo fthis p roduct. DAIRY C EN T RA L - P H AS E 2 AND 3 SPE C IA L U SE P E R M I T PLANNI NG CO M M I SS I O N MAY 22, 2018 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION MEET INGS + STAKEHO L D ER M EET I N G S - EX T EN S I V E CO MM U N I TY E N G AG E ME N T MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA COMMU N IT Y MEET IN G # 1 PUBL I C M E E T I N G S • Community Meeting #1: 11/20/2017 • Community Meeting #2: 1/29/2018 • Site Plan Review Meeting: 11/15/2017 • 10th and Page Neighborhood Association Meeting: 7/25/2017 • 10th and Page Neighborhood Association Meeting: 9/26/2017 • 10th and Page Neighborhood Association Meeting: 12/13/2017 • BAR Pre-Application Meeting #1: 9/19/2017 • BAR Pre-Application Meeting #2: 11/21/2017 • BAR Certificate of Appropriateness Meeting: 1/17/2018 • Neighborhood Advisory Committee Meeting: 2/21/2018 continuing monthly • Neighborhood Advisory Committee Meeting: 3/20/2018 • Rose Hill Neighborhood Association Meeting: 3/27/2018 • Neighborhood Advisory Committee Meeting: 5/14/2018 • Neighborhood Advisory Committee Meeting 6/4/2018 STA K E HO L D E R M E E T I N GS • City of Promise • Habitat for Humanity • PB&J Foundation • Albermale Housing Improvement Program • Second Season • Neighborhood Businesses • Charlottesville City Council Members • Charlottesville Planning Commissioners • Charlottesville Economic Development Authority • Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority • Charlottesville School Division • Piedmont Virginia Community College • GO Charlottesville Skilled Trades Academy STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 2 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION PROJE CT HIGHLIGHTS + COM M UN I T Y BEN EF I TS MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA COMMU N IT Y MEET IN G # 2 • Affordable housing • Community meeting space • Office space for non-profits • Job creation • Educational opportunities • Pedestrian safety • Green building Phase 1: Targeting LEED Silver Phase 2: Targeting Earthcraft Multifamily STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 3 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION EXIST ING SITE & CON T EX T MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA KEY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRESTON PLAZA NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL GR AD YA VEN BUSINESS AND UE TECHNOLOGY . , NW ST ER EET OK E NW BO MIXED USE IV STR DR ET, LL 10 ½ TRE PR HI ES SE HS TO RO N AV 10T ENU E WE ST S TRE ET W ,N ET RE ST H MONTICELLO 9T DAIRY SITE STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 4 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION G R ADY + P RESTON AVEN UE CON T EX T P HOTOG RA P H S MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 1. A E RI A L V I E W O F T H E S I T E F R O M T H E NO RT H -WE ST 2 . AER IAL VIEW OF THE SITE FR OM THE NORTH 3 . A ERI A L V I E W O F T H E S I T E F R O M T H E NO RT H -E AST 4. DAIRY BUILDING FR OM GR ADY AVENUE + WOOD STR EET STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 5 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION PHASING DIAGRAMS: PHASE ONE (APPROVED BY B.A.R. ON 01.17.18) MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PRIMARY STREET 0' - 15' setback GRADY AVENUE 50% S-1 buffer PRE STO N AVE NUE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING DAIRY - 2ND FLOOR 1 STORY OFFICE ADDITION (ABOVE EXISTING DAIRY BUILDING) PHASE 4 SITE 3 STORY OFFICE (+ GARAGE BELOW) ADDITION LOADING PRIMARY STREET 10TH STREET NW PHASE 2 SITE PHASE 3 SITE KEY PROPERTY LINE E EXISTING IN TY L PER OFFICE PRO 0' - 0" MIN. 15' - 0" MAX. SETBACK 20' - 0" MAX. SETBACK 5' - 0" MIN. SETBACK WEST STREET PROPERTY LINE LINKING STREET 5' - 20' setback 50% S-1 buffer PH AS E O NE PLAN 1 0 16 32 6 4 FT. STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 6 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION PHASING DIAGRAMS: PROPOSED PHASE TWO MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PRIMARY STREET 0' - 15' setback GRADY AVENUE 50% S-1 buffer PRE STO N AVE NUE Phase 2 Residential 15' - 0" MAX. SETBACK PROPERTY LINE D Total Units: +/- 175 ADJUSTED PROPERTY BOUNDARY D PHASE 1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY (based on projected unit sizes DETERMINED BY SURVEY and mix) Total GSF: +/- 228,700 PHASE 1 (BY RIGHT) Bldg. PHASE 4 SITE Height: 60’-0” to 65’-0” T LOADING T T T PRIMARY STREET 10TH STREET NW PHASE 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINED BY SURVEY (S.U.P) PHASE 3 SITE KEY PROPERTY LINE E RESIDENTIAL IN TY L PER PRO 40' - 2" 40' - 2" 0' - 0" MIN. 15' - 0" MAX. SETBACK ADJUSTED PROPERTY BOUNDARY PHASE 1 20' - 0" MAX. 5' - 0" MIN. PROPERTY LINE SETBACK SETBACK WEST STREET PROPERTY BOUNDARY DETERMINED BY SURVEY LINKING STREET 5' - 20' setback 50% S-1 buffer P HASE T WO P L AN 1 0 16 32 6 4 F T. STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 7 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION PHASING DIAGRAMS: PROPOSED PHASE THREE MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PRIMARY STREET 0' - 15' setback GRADY AVENUE 50% S-1 buffer PRE STO N AVE NUE Phase 3 Residential 15.00' MAX SETBACK PROPERTY LINE D Total Units: 60-75 D (based on projected unit sizes and mix) Total GSF: +/- 65,000 PHASE 1 PHASE 4 (BY RIGHT) BUILDABLE AREA Bldg. (FUTURE BY-RIGHT PARKING GARAGE Height: 60’-0” to 65’-0” AND RETAIL) T T T T PRIMARY STREET 10TH STREET NW PHASE 3 RESIDENTIAL PHASE 2 (S.U.P) (S.U.P) KEY PROPERTY LINE E RESIDENTIAL IN TY L PER PRO 15' - 0" MAX. SETBACK 20' - 0" MAX. SETBACK 5' - 0" MIN. SETBACK WEST STREET PROPERTY LINE LINKING STREET 5' - 20' setback 50% S-1 buffer P HASE S T H R E E + FO U R P L A N 1 0 16 32 6 4 F T. STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 8 PH PAHS AES E2 ,2 3A A NND D3 4S U SPU PS U SBUM BMI SI SS ISOI O NN PH AS E 2 A N D 3 MASS I N G D I AG R A M - T R A N SI T I O N F R O M CO MM E R C I A L CO R R I DO R TO R E S I DE N TI A L NEI GHB O RHO O D MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA MASSING/HEIGHT KEY BY-RIGHT: 50’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT PHASE 3 (PROPOSING 4 STORIES WITHIN BY-RIGHT HEIGHT) PHASE 1 AC K OM SPECIAL USE PERMIT: B ” FR E P ’-0 N ST E 45 P. LI 80’ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT ” O ’- 0 PR 10 PHASE 2 (ASKING FOR 65’ HEIGHT - 15’ ABOVE BY-RIGHT 50’ D -0” TE 5 STORIES TOTAL WITH 15’ UES ” Q STEPBACKS) RE 30’-0 . VS 10T 2) HS E X ID CE ( TR ” W PA EE ’-0 N S TN 8 4 EE W GR M F RO E OF ” C 0 ”-0 FA 1 TO ING PL ILD BU ET T RE STS E W STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 9 PH PAHS AES E2 ,2 3A A NND D3 4S U SPU PS U SBUM BMI SI SS ISOI O NN PH AS E 2 A N D 3 DEN SI T Y D I AG R A M - T R A N SI T I O N F R O M CO MM E R C I A L CO R R I DO R TO R E S I DE N TI A L NEI GHB O RHO O D MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA UNITS KEY BY-RIGHT: BY-RIGHT UNITS ALLOWED 43 DUA = 187 UNITS PHASE 1 PHASE 3 PHASE 2 = +/- 175 UNITS SPECIAL USE PERMIT: SUP DENSITY REQUESTED: 60 DU / ACRE = 261 UNITS MAX. PHASE 2 REQUESTING 74 UNITS BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF THESE 74 NEW UNITS, 20 WILL BE AFFORDABLE UNITS (27%) PHASE 3 = 60-75 UNITS 10T *NOTE: CC ZONING ALLOWS FOR HS TR UP TO 120 DUA BY SUP, OR 522 EE UNITS TOTAL. TN W ET T RE STS E W STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 10 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION BUILDING BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE (LOOKING NORTH-EAST) MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA VE. P R E S TO N A PHASE 1 T R EE ST T ES 10 W TH ST RE ET T R EE ST T ES PHASE 1 W 10 TH ALLEY ST RE ET WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 11 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION BUILDING BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE (LOOKING NORTH-WEST) MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PR ES TO GRA N DY A AV VE. E. PHASE 2 PHASE 1 W ES T ST RE ET PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 12 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION BUILDING BIRD’S EYE PERSPECTIVE (LOOKING NORTH-WEST) MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PR ES TO GRA N DY A AV VE. E. PHASE 2 APPROVED (S.U.P.) PHASE 1 (BY RIGHT) PHASE 3 (S.U.P.) W ES T ST RE ET PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 13 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION B U IL DING P ERSP ECTI V E AT W EST ST R EET MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 14 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION BUILDING PERSPECTIVE ON WEST STREET LOOKING NORTH MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 15 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION B U IL DING P ERSP ECTI V E ON 10 T H ST R EET AT W E ST STR E E T MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 1 WEST STREET STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 16 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION BUILDING PERSPECTIVE ON WEST STREET LOOKING NORTH MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 ALLEY WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 17 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION L E VEL 1 P LAN MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 - DAIRY T T T T 1 PROP. LINE 23 PHASE ONE ALLEY/MEWS 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 11' - 9" 9' - 5" 7' - 4" PHASE TWO 500' - 6" RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA LOBBY 1 1 22 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY 24 LINKING STREET 5' - 20' setback 50% S-1 buffer FUTURE PHASE 3 157' - 0" WOOD STREET 500' - 6" 500' - 6" 10TH STREET NW 95' - 0" NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR 11' - 0" RESIDENTIAL PHASE 2: 8' - 0" DN SITE FOOTPRINT: DN PROP. LINE 57,410 SF 11' - 0" 66' - 4" 46' - 2" 63' - 0" 46' - 2" 66' - 4" 4' - 0" 40' - 7 1/2" 61' - 3" 17' - 5" OPEN SPACE: 21,900 SF 15' - 10" WEST STREET 288' - 0" LINKING STREET 5' - 20' setback 38% OPEN SPACE 50% S-1 buffer 1 1 21 20 WEST STREET FRONTAGE: 40% OPEN @ GROUND FLOOR PROPOSED LEVEL 1 PLAN 1 S C A L E : 1 ” = 4 0 ’–0 ” STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 18 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION PROPOSED PLANS MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 - DAIRY PHASE 1 - DAIRY T T T T T T T T 1 PROP. LINE PROP. LINE 23 PHASE ONE PHASE ONE ALLEY ALLEY/MEWS 275' - 0" ALLEY ALLEY/MEWS PHASE TWO PHASE TWO RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 1 1 1 22 22 24 FUTURE FUTURE PHASE 3 PHASE 3 165' - 0" 165' - 0" WOOD STREET WOOD STREET 10TH STREET NW 10TH STREET NW 107' - 10" RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 20' - 9" 46' - 4" PROP. LINE PROP. LINE 74' - 4" 40' - 2" 67' - 0" 40' - 2" 73' - 4" 74' - 4" 36' - 2" 71' - 0" 40' - 2" 74' - 4" WEST STREET 295' - 0" WEST STREET 296' - 0" 1 1 1 1 21 20 21 20 PROPOSED LEVELS 2-4 TYPICAL PLAN PROPOSED LEVELS 5 PLAN 1 0 20 40 80 F T. 2 0 20 40 80 F T. STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 19 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION G ARAG E P LAN MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE 1 - DAIRY T T T T PHASE ONE 1 G PROP. LINE 23 ALLEY ALLEY/MEWS G PARKING ENTRANCE 20' - 0" 18' - 0" PHASE TWO LOADING 489' - 0" LOBBY 1 36' - 0" 24 Approximate FUTURE PHASE 3 WOOD STREET 170' - 0" 20' - 0" Parking Count: RESIDENTIAL ABOVE +/- 143 spaces 36' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 18' - 0" 20' - 0" 489' - 0" PROP. LINE 287' - 0" PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN 1 S C A L E : 1 ” = 4 0 ’–0 ” STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 20 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION OVER ALL SOUTH ELE VAT I ON MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PHASE TWO PHASE THREE / FOUR Roof 557' - 0" B - Roof Level 5 549' - 0" 546' - 0" B - Level 5 Level 4 537' - 0" 60' - 0" ** 535' - 0" B - Level 4 49' - 6" 60' - 0" ** Level 3 526' - 0" 524' - 0" B - Level 3 Level 2 515' - 0" 513' - 0" B - Level 2 Level 1 504' - 0" 500' - 6" Phase 3 MP Phase 2 MP 493' - 4 5/16" 498' - 6" B - Level 1 493' - 0" WOOD ST. Sim 1- --- 21 **N OT E: G R O U ND- L E V E L F LO O R -TO-FLO O R MAY VARY F RO M 1 1 ’ - 0 ” TO 1 4 ’- 0 ” , AF F E C T I NG B UILDING H E IG H T F RO M 6 0’ - 0 ” TO 6 5’- 0 ” . PROPOSED OVERALL SOUTH ELEVATION @ WEST STREET 1 SC A L E : 1 ” = 4 0 ’–0 ” PHASE 1 N OT E : - P HASE T WO ME AS U R I N G P O INT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G 10T H ST RE E T, NW. ALLEY -1 0T H ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P HASE T WO. - P HASE T H R E E ME AS U R I N G P OINT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G W E ST ST RE E T, NW. -WEST ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WEST STREET P HASE T H R E E . 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 21 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION S O U T H ELEVATION MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA **NOTE: G RO UN D - L E V E L F LO O R -TO - F LO O R MAY VARY FROM 11 ’ - 0” TO 1 4 ’ - 0 ” , A F F E C T I N G B U I L DI NG H E IG H T FROM 60 ’ - 0” TO 6 5 ’- 0 ” . PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1 S C A L E : 1 ” = 20 ’–0 ” PHASE 1 N OT E : - P HASE T WO ME AS U R I N G P O INT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G 10T H ST RE E T, NW. ALLEY -1 0T H ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P HASE T WO. WEST STREET 1 STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 22 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION W E ST ELEVATION MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PROPERTY LINE TO FACE OF BUILDING AT BRICK: 9’-5” TO 11’-0” PROERTY LINE TO FACE OF BUILDING AT PROJECTING BAYS: 5’-6” T0 7’-0” STEPBACK TO PENTHOUSE FROM FACE OF BUILDING AT BRICK: 10’-0” **NOTE: GR OUND-LEVEL FLOOR -TO-FLOOR MAY VA RY FR OM 11’-0 ” TO 14’-0 ”, AFFECTING BUILDING HEIG H T FR OM 60 ’-0 ” TO 65’-0 ”. PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION @ 10TH STREET NW 1 SC A L E : 1 ” = 20 ’–0 ” PHASE 1 N OT E : - P HASE T WO ME AS U R I N G P O INT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G 10T H ST RE E T, NW. ALLEY -1 0T H ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P HASE T WO. 1 WEST STREET STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 23 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION NORTH ELEVATION MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA **NOTE: GR OUND-LEVEL FLOOR -TO-FLOOR M AY VA RY FR OM 11’-0 ” TO 14’-0 ”, AFFECTING B U I L D I N G H E I GH T FR OM 60 ’-0 ” TO 65’-0 ”. PHASE 1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 1 S C A L E : 1 ” = 20 ’–0 ” 1 N OT E : - P HASE T WO ME AS U R I N G P O INT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G 10T H ST RE E T, NW. ALLEY -1 0T H ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P HASE T WO. WEST STREET STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 24 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION EAST ELEVATION MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA **N OT E: G RO U N D- L E V E L F LO O R -TO -FLO O R MAY VARY F RO M 1 1 ’ - 0” TO 1 4 ’- 0 ” , AF F E C T I NG B UILDING H E IG H T F RO M 6 0’ - 0” TO 6 5’- 0 ” . PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1 S C A L E : 1 ” = 20 ’–0 ” PHASE 1 N OT E : - P HASE T WO ME AS U R I N G P O INT IS B AS E D O N AV E RAG E C U R B H E I GH T A LO N G 10T H ST RE E T, NW. ALLEY -1 0T H ST R E E T, NW I S T H E P R IMARY ST RE E T FO R WOOD STREET 10TH STREET PHASE 2 PHASE 3 P HASE T WO. 1 WEST STREET STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 25 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION S O L AR STUDY MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA JU NE 2 1 P P P R R R GR E GR E GR E AD ST AD ST AD ST Y A O Y A O Y A O VE N V E N V E N A A A V V V E E E NW NW NW ET ET ET RE RE RE ST ST ST TH TH TH 10 10 10 WE WE WE ST ST ST ST ST ST RE RE RE ET ET ET 9AM 12 PM 5P M STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 26 PHASE 2 AND 3 SUP SUBMISSION S O L AR STUDY MONTICELLO DAIRY – PHASE 2 AND 3 | 946 GRADY AVENUE | CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA DE C E M BER 2 1 P P P R R R GR E GR E GR E AD ST AD ST AD ST Y A O Y A O Y A O VE N V E N V E N A A A V V V E E E NW NW NW ET ET ET RE RE RE ST ST ST TH TH TH 10 10 10 WE WE WE ST ST ST ST ST ST RE RE RE ET ET ET 10 AM 12 PM 3 PM STONY POINT DESIGN/BUILD, LLC | CUNNINGHAM | QUILL ARCHITECTS | TIMMONS GROUP | WATERSTREET STUDIO 05.22.2018 27 P ROJE CT H IGHLI GHTS + COMMU N I TY B EN EFI TS • Affordable housing • Office space for non-profits • Educational opportunities • Community meeting space • Job creation • Pedestrian safety 10TH STREET NW ALLEY WOOD STREET WEST STREET feet 0 30 DAIRY CENTRAL PHASE 2 waterstreet studio LANDSCAPE ARCHITEC TS PLANNERS PLAN PHASE 2 SKETCH 12 JUNE | 2018 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Adoption of Resolution Presenters: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Scott Hendrix, Project Manager, Facilities Development Staff Contacts: Mike Mollica, Division Manager, Facilities Development Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Title: Transfer to the Circuit Court Renovation & Expansion Project from CIP Contingency and Courthouse Security Funds - $857,000 Project Background: This project is an interior renovation, and a building addition, to address current security, court operations, and ADA needs & requirements. The improvements will include a second courtroom & associated court-related functions on the lower level; a passenger elevator; a sally-port (for secure transfer of detainees) w/ adjacent detainee holding cells, as well as restroom renovations on both levels. Funding Background: Funding for this project was previously approved as follows:  FY17 - $500,000 CIP line item – for the design phase; and  FY18 - $4,000,000 CIP line item – for the construction phase o In addition to the construction contract amount, the construction phase funding also includes costs associated with swing space construction (Jessup and Levy), construction management, FFE (furniture, fixtures & equipment), IT related costs (fiber, data, telephone & AV), relocation costs to swing space, site survey, geo tech evaluation, facility signage package, CCTV, and the construction contingency. Bidding Background: Bids for this project (IFB #18-26) were opened April 26, 2018. The bid results were as follows:  $3,164,831 – Bid Target (as estimated by an independent third-party cost estimator)  $3,859,000 – Low Base Bid (of 5 bids received)  Additive Bid Item 1 – ballistic window protection: Add $55,218  Additive Bid Item 2 – fire sprinkler system: Add $107,357 The low base bid was approximately 22% higher than our target, but yet three of the five bids received fell within the range $3.8M - $4.0M. While disappointing, this is not surprising, given the current robust regional construction market, which is creating higher prices related to labor and materials. Since the low bid exceeded our project budget, all bids were subsequently rejected. Additional funding will now be necessary in order to re-bid this project. And it should be pointed out that there is no guarantee that the next round of bidding will provide a similar low bid result. We are, however, optimistic that the re-bidding could result in some cost savings, as the revised construction schedule will now avoid the busy summer construction season, and may allow for more contractors to bid the project. Discussion: Value engineering/elimination of scope from the project. While it is possible to eliminate some minor scope from the project, the vast majority of the scope is related to the major components and goals of the project, such as the construction of a new lower level courtroom, and the new ADA-compliant sally-port, holding cells and elevator. In fact, these elements were the primary drivers for this project, and have been for many years. Swing Space. While it is certainly an option to defer this project to another fiscal year, this is not an attractive option, primarily due to the swing space schedule limitations that the City has at the Jessup Building and the Levy Opera House. We are currently planning on using the Levy and Jessup facilities to serve as swing space for the courtroom, Clerk and Judge’s offices, the Clerk’s customer service space, as well as for the City Sheriff’s offices. MOU’s with Albemarle County (necessary due to joint ownership) for both Jessup and Levy are now fully executed and are in hand. The spaces at Levy and Jessup are currently under renovation for this purpose, at a cost of approximately $230,000. Swing space construction is nearing 95% completion. Deferring the Circuit Court project to a future fiscal year would eliminate the use of Jessup and Levy as swing space, due to the County’s need for Levy as their General District Court facility. Fund Transfer. This request, if approved by Council, would transfer a total of $857,000 in additional funds to the Circuit Court Project account (P-00918) which will come from the following previously appropriated accounts:  $582,000 from the City’s CIP Contingency (CP-080)  $200,000 from the City’s Courthouse Maintenance fee account (P-00099)  $75,000 from the Courthouse Construction fee account (P-00783) These additional funds will provide for a consolidated total project budget of $5,357,000 the actual low bid amount, which was received in April. Assuming a successful re-bid, construction would begin during the early fall of 2018. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This project supports City Council’s “Smart, Citizen-Focus Government” vision, and contributes to Strategic Plan Goals; 2: A Healthy and Safe City, and 5: A Well-managed and Responsive Organization. Community Engagement: N/A Budgetary Impact: No new funds are being requested as the sources identified for the additional funds have been previously appropriated and by state statue required to be used for court purposes. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this resolution. Alternatives: Do not proceed with the project (the Circuit Court project cannot proceed to the bid phase without additional funding). Attachments: N/A RESOLUTION Transfer to Circuit Court Renovation Project from CIP Contingency and Courthouse Security Funds $857,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through the Facilities Development Division, is renovating and expanding the Charlottesville Circuit Court building; WHEREAS, previous bids for this project exceeded the current project budget and additional funds are needed to re-bid the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the following is hereby transferred from previously appropriated funds in the following manner: Transfer From $582,000 Fund: 426 WBS: CP-080 G/L Account: 599999 $200,000 Fund: 107 WBS: P-00099 G/L Account: 599999 $ 75,000 Fund: 107 WBS: P-00783 G/L Account: 599999 Transfer To $857,000 Fund: 426 WBS: P-00918 G/L Account: 599999 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Requested: Vote on Resolution Presenter: Kaye Monroe, Minority Business Task Force Member Staff Contacts: Jennifer Stieffenhofer, Procurement and Risk Manager Hollie Lee, Chief of Workforce Development Strategies Title: Minority Business Task Force Report Background: The City of Charlottesville’s Procurement and Risk Management Division and the Office of Economic Development collaborated with the Minority Business Task Force appointed by City Council to accomplish the tasks designated by City Council in its associated Resolution dated June 19, 2017, included as Attachment A of the Minority Business Task Force Report. Discussion: Refer to the report provided by the Minority Business Task Force. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: This initiative supports City Council’s: 1) “A Community of Mutual Respect” vision, 2) “A Smart Citizen-Focused Government” vision, and 3) “Economic Sustainability” vision. It contributes to Goal 4 of the Strategic plan, objectives 4.2 and 4.3. Community Engagement: Task Force appointed by City Council. Budgetary Impact: None anticipated. Recommendation: Approve the continuance of the Minority Business Task Force as an advisory task force with the City’s Finance Department/Procurement and Risk Management Division, and Office of Economic Development. Alternatives: City staff will advance the City’s Minority Business Program without an advisory task force. Attachments: • Minority Business Task Force Report • Attachment A – Resolution to Establish Task Force, 6/19/17 • Attachment B – Strategy to Increase Minority Spend • Attachment C – Minority Business Procurement Coordinator Job Description CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE MINORITY BUSINESS TASK FORCE Report to City Council July 2, 2018 Submitted by: Melvin Burruss, Mark Manafee, Kaye Monroe, Karen Totten White, and Andrea Copeland-Whitsett Presented by: Kaye Monroe INTRODUCTION: In 2017, former Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy initiated an effort focused on accelerating the City’s supplier diversity program, particularly the minority-owned (“MBE”) and women-owned (“WBE”) business element where City spending is lower than for other certified business designations. In November 2017, City Council appointed a task force, the Minority Business Task Force (formerly the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force). PURPOSE/CHARGE AND STATUS REPORT: The June 19, 2017 City Council Resolution, included herein as Attachment A, defines the purpose and charge of the Task Force: 1. Outline a strategy to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City; • Status: The Task Force collaborated with City staff to develop a strategy to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City. The strategy is included herein as Attachment B. 2. Develop a job description for the approved procurement position within 60 days from the date City Council appoints five (5) members to the Task Force; • Status: The Task Force collaborated with City Staff to develop a job description for the approved procurement position. The Minority Business Procurement Coordinator job description is included herein as Attachment C. • The Minority Business Procurement Coordinator is Deanna Scarsone. The vacancy was filled April 30, 2018. 3. Work as an advisory task force with the approved procurement position. • Status: The Task Force has not worked with the approved procurement position. RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. The Task Force recommends that the task force remain in existence to work as an advisory task force with the City’s Finance Department/Procurement and Risk Management Division, and Office of Economic Development. ATTACHMENT A – 6/19/17 Resolution Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, that there is hereby created a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force, composed of five (5) members appointed by City Council with input from the City Manager, to act as an advisory board to City Staff and City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force’s purpose is to: 1. Outline a strategy to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City; 2. Develop a job description for the approved procurement position within 60 days from the date City Council appoints five (5) members to the Task Force; and 3. Work as an advisory task force with the approved procurement position. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that after 60 days from the date the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force has five (5) members, City Council will assess whether the task force should remain in existence. Approved by Council June 19, 2017 Clerk of Council ATTACHMENT B – Minority Procurement Program Strategy City of Charlottesville Minority Procurement Program Strategy An Approach Designed to Increase the Number and Scale of Minority-Owned Businesses Contracting with the City of Charlottesville. Background: The City of Charlottesville has one of the longest standing supplier diversity programs in Virginia. The City’s initial program was adopted in 1985. The City’s environment includes many procurement and economic development practices that support supplier diversity. In 2017, former Vice-Mayor Wes Bellamy initiated an effort focused on accelerating the City’s supplier diversity program, particularly the minority-owned (MBE) and women-owned (WBE) business element where City spending is lower than for other certified business designations. City Council appointed a task force, the Minority Business Task Force (formerly the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Task Force). The Minority Business Task Force includes: Melvin Burruss, Mark Menafee, Kaye Monroe, Karen Totten White, and Andrea Copeland-Whitsett. The task force is tasked with outlining a strategy to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City. The definitions of minority-owned and women-owned businesses and other certified businesses are as per Code of Virginia, § 2.2-4310. Purpose: This plan develops a strategy to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City of Charlottesville. The City of Charlottesville will provide opportunities for responsible businesses, and to making every reasonable effort to increase opportunities for minority-owned, women-owned and other certified businesses. Objective: This strategy provides a guide for the City to achieve its goal to increase the number and scale of minority-owned businesses contracting with the City. This includes contracts and subcontracts funded in whole or in part with City funds. The City of Charlottesville intends to advance its supplier diversity program while complying with law. The City will strive to achieve a level playing field for all companies to have access to public procurement opportunities. Strategy: The City will use this strategy to strive to meet the purpose of this plan: 1. Equitable Approach to Procurement and Good Faith Efforts: a. As part of the City’s decentralized procurement process for purchases $50,000 and less, monitor and require documentation of City department compliance with the City’s directive to include MBEs and WBEs in: o Opportunities to receive awards of small single-quote purchase $5,000 and less ($3,500 and less for Charlottesville Area Transit). o Opportunities to compete in the City’s informal competitive procurement process for purchases >$5,000 - $50,000 where, if available, at least (2) two of at least (4) four businesses invited to participate in the public procurement process are certified businesses. b. As part of the City’s centralized procurement process for purchases >$50,000, monitor and require documentation of City Procurement’s compliance with the City’s directive to include MBEs and WBEs in: o Opportunities to compete in the City’s formal competitive procurement processes where at least (2) two businesses invited to participate in the public procurement process are certified businesses.  Invitation for Bids (IFB) will be publicly posted on the City’s electronic bid board, besides direct invitation.  Request for Proposals (RFP) will be publicly posted on the City’s electronic bid board, and advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in Charlottesville. c. For all IFBs and RFPs, include a form for completion by bidders and offerors. The form will include a statement regarding the City’s MBE and WBE procurement objectives, and will request submission of the bidder’s/offeror’s certification data besides that of any subcontractors the bidder/offeror plans to use as part of any contract resulting from the solicitation. For subcontractors, the report will include planned dollars spend for each. As part of contract administration, confirm that City contractors subcontract as agreed to per contract. d. Participate in pre-bid and pre-proposal meetings and instruct potential bidders and offerors on the City’s supplier diversity program and how to search for certified businesses. e. Upon request, provide feedback to unsuccessful bidders and subcontractors to encourage their future successful participation. f. Include prompt payment mechanisms in City contracts. g. Technically assist MBEs and WBEs relative to bonding, insurance and financing required for performance of City contracts. h. Identify and remove barriers that impede MBEs & WBEs from doing business with the City. Determine actual barriers vs. perceived barriers. i. Identify saturated markets & unsaturated markets as areas of possible business growth for MBEs & WBEs and provide meaningful data to Economic Development. j. Collect and analyze City department/division spend data combined with collecting and analyzing MBE and WBE certification data, and market to City departments/divisions to show them MBEs and WBEs that sell what City departments buy. k. Work with the Virginia Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity (SBSD) to attempt to provide a certification process that is more expedient and user friendly. l. Consider the differences between the state certification program for MBEs and WBEs and the federal certification criteria. Explore options to potentially promote aligning the certifications. 2. Outreach, Vendor Engagement and Training: a. Identify existing MBEs & WBEs not certified, market the advantages of becoming a certified business, and assist with the certification process as needed. b. Develop a systematic method and provide training to City employees on how to easily identify MBE and WBEs that sell what the City buys. The City will use the City’s vendor database and the Virginia Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity’s (SBSD) certification database to search for MBE/WBEs. c. Provide internal and external training on the City’s Minority Business Program. d. Develop informational and documentary materials on contract/subcontract opportunities. e. Sponsor and participate in business opportunity-related meetings, conferences, seminars, etc. with minority and women-owned businesses. f. Expand partnerships with other organizations to reach more businesses, i.e. UVA Supplier Diversity, County of Albemarle, etc. Performance Measures: City Procurement will maintain centralized records with statistical data on utilization of MBEs, WBEs and other certified businesses. The City will prepare semi-annual program spend reports and will use this information to measure success: 1. Increase the number and scale of certified MBEs and WBEs that sell the goods and services the City purchases. Note: This can be measured by capturing an existing snapshot of certified MBEs and WBEs registered with the City that sell goods and services the City purchases, working towards increasing this registration, and then measuring the increase. 2. Increase the number and scale of MBEs and WBEs contracting with the City. Note: This can be measure in several ways. The approach will consider the following priority order: a. Within the City of Charlottesville o Certified MBEs o Certified WBEs o All other certified businesses within the City of Charlottesville, including small local businesses b. Within the greater Charlottesville Area (defined as Planning District 10) o Certified MBEs o Certified WBEs o All other certified businesses c. Within Virginia (same order) o With the U.S. (same order) o Other (same order) The City must include performance measures within the parameters of enabling legislation. The City must align the performance measures with the priorities, e.g. a specific aspirational goal is set for minority spend that does not consider jurisdiction, then this prioritizes minority spend generally over spending with other local businesses. Based on task force discussions, that’s not the intent. The City must be careful setting specific spend goals, other than aspirational goals, without first having a disparity study. The City also must be careful regarding the appearance of a geographic preference so we do not run afoul of other applicable law. ATTACHMENT C - Minority Business Procurement Coordinator Job Description Class Title Minority Business Procurement Coordinator Class Code 285 Salary $3,061.47 - $5,584.19 Monthly General Summary Administer the City’s Minority Business Program (MBP) and perform procurements that range in complexity and provide professional and technical support for the Procurement and Risk Management Services Division. Work involves considerable individual responsibility and exercising independent judgment related to the procurement of a wide variety of goods, non-professional and professional services and construction; and does related work as required. Work is accomplished under federal, state and local law such as the Virginia Public Procurement Act, City Code, grants, and other applicable law. For Charlottesville Area Transit, conduct procurements under the Federal Transit Administration requirements and other applicable law. Work is performed under the general supervision of the Procurement and Risk Manager. Essential Responsibilities and Duties Cultivate and develop the City’s federal and state Minority Business Program (MBP) to support the growth of the program. The MBP includes these businesses: under the federal program - Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Women Business Enterprise (WBE), Disadvantaged Business (DBE), Veteran Business Enterprise (VBE), and Small Business Administration (SBA), AND under the state program – Small, Women-Owned and Minority-Owned businesses and Micro businesses (SWaM-O) and Service Disabled Veterans (VBE), Employment Service Organization (ESO) and any other businesses which is part of the City’s MBP. Businesses covered by the City’s MBP are herein called MBP businesses and/or vendors. Cultivating and developing the City’s MBP includes, but is not limit to: • Identifying and minimizing barriers that impede MBP Businesses from doing business with the City. • Collecting and analyzing City department/division spend data in combination with collecting and analyzing MBP business certification data, and market to City departments/divisions to show MBP businesses that sell what departments buy. • Identify saturated markets & unsaturated markets as areas of possible business growth for MBP businesses and provide meaningful data to Economic Development for their use in business development. • Increase the City’s contracting with MBP businesses and measure success. • Provide internal and external MBP training. Serve as a Central Buyer and complete procurement processes using varying methods of procurement such as small purchase procedures, competitive sealed bidding, competitive negotiation, sole source, emergency and cooperative procurements. Evaluates the need for citywide and department specific term contracts based on analysis and assessment of purchase history and projection of future needs. Facilitates decentralized procurement program, and reviews purchases requested by decentralized buyers/end users under the City's small purchase procedures and approves or denies contracts (purchase orders) based on applicable procurement laws, ordinances, policies and regulations. Assists decentralized buyers/end users with the planning and scheduling of purchases, including the development of specifications and/or scope of work, and assist decentralized buyers/end users with Contract Administration procedures. Provides customer service to include assisting internal and external customers with various requests for assistance or information as needed, including Freedom of Information Act requests related to the MBP. Utilizes procurement resources to assist in making sound procurement decisions. Independently manages special projects as assigned within the division and performs related tasks as required. Represents the City at various trade shows and outreach events, and provides training to vendors on how to do business with the City. Conducts training for City departments on SAP purchasing functionality such as creating requisitions, purchase orders, contract purchases, receiving and the payment process. Assists decentralized buyers/end users with the SAP purchasing and inventory transactions. Acts a back- up to Buyer III. Education, Experience and Skills Education: Minimally requires an Associate's Degree in Business Administration or any combination of education and experience equivalent to graduation from high school supplemented by college level courses in business administration or related field. Experience: Minimum of two years of experience in procurement, construction, business services to assist minority/women business enterprises; or any equivalent combination of education, training, and experience which provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities for this job. Experience in local government preferred. Skills: Thorough knowledge of standard office practices, procedures, and equipment; excellent written and verbal skills; strong organizational skills; strong computer skills including experience with Microsoft Office and automated systems; general knowledge of common business methods, marketing and purchasing practices; knowledge of federal, Virginia laws and the City Code as they relate to public purchasing; general knowledge of automated purchasing and inventory systems; knowledge of contract and procurement law and methods of procurement; contract negotiation; experience in a multi-functional fast paced environment; ability to interpret policy; ability to set priorities and perform tasks with little supervision; and the ability to establish effective working relationships with other departments, other officials, vendors, and the general public; ability to work independently, but seek guidance from others when needed; ability to adjust routine procedures to accommodate challenges or improve processes, ability to adjust to typical work stressors (deadlines, disagreeable contacts, etc.); ability to interpret and deal with an extensive variety of variables. Experience with an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system preferred, specifically with purchasing and inventory modules. SAP related experience a plus. Special Requirement: Must be certified as a Virginia Contracting Officer, Certified Professional Public Buyer, Certified Professional Procurement Officer or other professional procurement certification within 3 years of employment start date. Organization Competencies Interpersonal Effectiveness/Communication: Provides information and guidance that assists others in making decisions; explains issues and/or concepts with clarity and confidence. Composes documents and reports that analyze, synthesize and convey complex information accurately and professionally. Listens to the ideas of others and applies them on the job, as appropriate can suggest communication process improvements. Balances individual and group needs. Service/Support Orientation: Responds to underlying service and support concerns and issues. Demonstrates an in-depth understanding of others' needs and responds appropriately. In addition to city and agency guidelines, exercises good judgment in responding to others in unique and difficult situations. Multi-tasking/Problem Solving: Balances multiple, complex tasks and completes them under general supervision. Gathers data using advanced measurement and analytical methods. Organization: Sets priorities within agency and program guidelines. Uses more difficult project management methods. Organizes related sets of responsibilities that require multiple steps for completion. Resolves own schedule conflicts. Manages appointment and assignment scheduling responsibly. Job Family Competencies Knowledge of Financial Systems: Audits the financial reports produced by others. Understands the overall organizational financial strategies. Explains procedures so others can carry them out correctly. Works on developing higher level and more sophisticated levels of financial reporting. Assist others in preparing budgets. Accuracy of Information and Transactions: Takes responsibility for finding accurate answers to questions, usually within the department. Reviews the work of others for accuracy of content and format. Understands the regulatory and compliance issues and can solve related problems on own. Financial Analysis: Demonstrates the ability to interpret and explain complex financial data to others. Completes financial analysis relying on own resources and expertise without close supervision. Understands the relationship among various financial statements. Conducts cost– benefit analysis and similar financial studies and projects with higher level professionals. Accounting and Budgeting: Understands the steps in the city's finance and accounting system execution and reporting processes and capable of explaining same to others. Capable of applying cost accounting practices and financial performance measures. Participates in accounting committees or task forces to provide professional input. Information Technology Aptitude: Proficient in more advanced software applications. Demonstrates user level skill in specialized financial software applications beyond basic software packages. Participates on project teams to review and evaluate new applications. Physical Conditions & Work Contacts Standard work environment. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlottesville Virginia that the Minority Business Task Force, appointed by City Council in November 2017 with five members, shall continue to serve as an advisory body to the City Council, the City Finance Department/Procurement and Risk Management Division, and Office of Economic Development as it pertains to the City’s Minority Business Program, and shall advise the City on policy and procedural issues involved in: 1. The City’s established policy of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in procurement; 2. The City’s continuing efforts to encourage the participation of certified businesses in City contracts; and 3. The City’s assurance that its procurement opportunities are made available to all persons, regardless of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability, or any other basis prohibited by law. The Minority Business Task Force shall not be empowered or authorized to provide advice or assistance with respect to or otherwise become involved in, individual procurement solicitations, evaluations, awards, disputes, or protests. City Council may increase or decrease the number of members serving on the Minority Business Task Force, and make additional appointments when vacancies arise. The Task Force shall report to City Council periodically on the minority procurement program strategy. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: July 2, 2018 Action Required: Presentation Presenter: Brian Daly, Director, Parks and Recreation Staff Contacts: Brian Daly, Director, Parks and Recreation Vic Garber, Recreation Division Manager Doug Ehman, Parks Division Manager Title: Parks and Recreation Citizen Survey Results Background: The 2017 Citywide Efficiency Study included a recommendation that the City establish a community wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Recommendation 31 stated in part: The Parks and Recreation Department has historically engaged in strategic planning with respect to individual parks and assets, including the City’s trail system. For example, in 2015 the Department completed a planning process for McIntire Park which contemplates improvements to the park’s amenities and infrastructure. Additionally, Park Master Plans have been developed for a number of City parks including the west side of McIntire Park, Rives Park, Forest Hills Park, Meade Park, the Meadow Creek Valley (which includes Greenbrier Park and Meadowcreek Gardens) and Azalea Park. The City’s commitment to ongoing park planning and the provision of quality recreation services is a primary driver behind the health and robust condition of its parks and recreation programming. However, as the Department continues to evolve and grow toward providing fully accredited services, it is important to create a comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan which considers the entirety of the Department’s assets and operations. Discussion: The first step in completing a community-wide Master Plan is a citizen survey of needs related to parks and recreation services. The most recent in-depth community survey of this type occurred in 2005/2006 and led to the 2006 Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment, which guided capital project decisions and organizational improvement for many years. Staff engaged in 2017 with the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey Research (CSR) to conduct the citizen survey. After staff work with the CSR staff to complete the survey instrument and agree upon the survey methodology, the survey was administered by CSR beginning in December of 2017 and was completed and the results delivered to Parks and Recreation in March and April of 2018. Parks and Recreation staff have evaluated the data resulting from the survey and conducted a staff retreat in May of 2018 to discuss the findings and identify actions to take as a result, which will be included in the Department’s Strategic Plan Workplan. Additionally, the findings will be presented in a series of public community meetings later in 2018 which will inform the drafting of a Community wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Staff from Parks and Recreation and the Center for Survey Research will make a presentation of the survey findings at the Council meeting. Alignment with City Council’s Vision and Strategic Plan: The project supports City Council’s Green City Vision and Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan for a Healthy and Safe Community. Community Engagement: The survey was limited to households within the City limits of Charlottesville. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) surveys were initially mailed, and four hundred ninety-one (491) surveys were completed and returned. This sample is statistically valid with a ninety-five (95) percent confidence level and sampling error margin of 4.4%. The survey was distributed geographically across the City and the responses represent geographic diversity. Budgetary Impact: There is currently no fiscal impact associated with the presentation of the survey results. Final cost to the City for the survey is approximately $30,000, funded within the FY18 general fund budget. Recommendation: As this is a presentation of information, staff has no further specific recommendations for Council action. However, staff have begun using the survey results to guide decision making for programming expansion and enhancement of customer service. Alternatives: N/A Attachments: Citizen Survey Documents & Results December 2017 ID: «CSRID» CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENTS LIVING AT«AddressBlock» Dear Charlottesville Residents: The City of Charlottesville is starting to create a Parks and Recreation Master Plan which will identify recreation needs and services for everyone in the community. Asking residents like you about your recreation needs and opinions is an important first step in this process. Even if you don’t use recreational facilities often – or at all – it is very important that we hear from you to get a complete picture of all city residents. The Charlottesville Department of Parks and Recreation has contracted with the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia to conduct a survey of city residents. We are writing to inform you about the survey and to ask for your cooperation with it. In the next week, you will receive a survey packet in the mail. The packet will contain a questionnaire for you to complete and a business reply envelope to use to return the survey directly to CSR. The results of the survey will provide important input to the city’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan process. On behalf of the Department of Parks and Recreation and the staff of the Center for Survey Research, we thank you in advance for taking the time to be part of the survey. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Jim Ellis, Director of Research at the Center for Survey Research, at jimellis@virginia.edu or (434) 243-5224. Sincerely, Brian Daly, Director Charlottesville Parks and Recreation 2400 Old Ivy Road P.O. Box 400767 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4767 Tel: (434) 243-5222 Fax: (434) 243-5233 www.virginia.edu/surveys A Unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service surveys@virginia.edu November 2017 ID: «CSRID» Charlottesville Residents Living At «AddressBlock» Dear Charlottesville Residents, We are asking for your help with the City of Charlottesville’s new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. As a token of our appreciation, we have included two free passes for admission to selected City of Charlottesville recreational facilities. You can help us by completing and returning the enclosed survey. Even if you don’t use recreational facilities or parks, it is very important that we hear from you to get a complete picture of all Charlottesville residents. Asking residents like you about your recreation needs and opinions is an important first step in the Master Plan process. Your address is part of a small random sample of City addresses selected to receive this survey, so your participation is important. Your responses to the survey will be confidential. Our sample list does not include names. It only has addresses. Your answers will never be reported with your address. The study ID number on this letter and other survey materials is used only to allow us to track responses and send additional mailings if we don’t hear from someone at your address. Who should complete the survey? The person or people in your household who are most familiar with the entire household’s use of recreational facilities and parks should complete it. But if your household is roommates living together and you don’t know the information for other people living at your address, you can treat yourself as a household of one person and complete the survey. If you have any questions or comments about the survey or need assistance to complete it, please contact me at jimellis@virginia.edu or 434-243-5224. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Cordially, James M. Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. Director of Research Center for Survey Research 2017 CHARLOTTESVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Purpose of the survey The City of Charlottesville is starting to create a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, which will identify recreation needs and services for everyone in the community. Asking residents like you about your recreation needs is an important first step in this process. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us! Completely confidential  Your answers are completely confidential.  Your name or contact information will not be reported with your survey responses. General instructions  There are no right or wrong answers. Your best guesses and estimates are OK.  Circle the number of your response to the question or check the box(es) that apply. Skip activities and items that do not apply to you.  When you finish, put your survey in the envelope provided, and mail it. No postage is required. Who can participate?  An adult 18 or older and who lives in the City of Charlottesville. How long will it take?  It will probably take about 15-20 minutes depending on your answers. When to send it back?  Please return the completed survey before December 31. For more information  Jim Ellis, Director of Research, Center for Survey Research, jimellis@virginia.edu or 434-243-5224  Doug Ehman, Charlottesville Department of Parks and Recreation, ehmand@charlottesville.org or 434-970-3021  UVa Institutional Review Board (SBS), irbsbshelp@virginia.edu, 434-924-5999 2017 Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Survey, UVa IRB-SBS # 2017-0416 A. Parks and Recreation A1. Please indicate the following information for the members of your household. If there are more than 12 people in your household, please use additional paper or list the oldest 12 household members. Person in your Gender Age in years household (circle one) a. YOURSELF M F Other b. 2nd person M F Other c. 3rd person M F Other d. 4th person M F Other e. 5th person M F Other f. 6th person M F Other g. 7th person M F Other h. 8th person M F Other i. 9th person M F Other j. 10th person M F Other k. 11th person M F Other l. 12th person M F Other A2. Thinking of all the City of Charlottesville Parks & Recreation Department parks, trails, and recreation facilities you have visited in the past 12 months, how would you rate their physical condition overall? 1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Fair 4 Poor 5 Have not visited any in the last 12 months 6 Don’t know/Prefer not to say 2 A3. Please indicate below the parks you have visited for recreational purposes in the last 12 months. Check box next to any For each park you visited, how often did you visit? parks you Park Locations have visited Almost Once or Once or twice Less than in past 12 every day twice a week a month once a month months A. Azalea Park 304 Old Lynchburg Rd. □ 4 3 2 1 Belmont Park B. 725 Stonehenge Ave. □ 4 3 2 1 Darden Towe Park C. 1445 Darden Towe Park Drive □ 4 3 2 1 D. Downtown Mall E. Main St. □ 4 3 2 1 E. Fifeville Park 1200 King Street □ 4 3 2 1 Forest Hills Park F. 1022 Forest Hills Ave. □ 4 3 2 1 Greenbrier Park G. 1933 Greenbrier Drive □ 4 3 2 1 Greenleaf Park H. 1598 Rose Hill Dr. □ 4 3 2 1 Justice Park (formerly Jackson Park) I. 405 E High Street □ 4 3 2 1 J. Jordan Park 1607 6th Street SE □ 4 3 2 1 Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park) K. 101 E Market Street □ 4 3 2 1 McGuffey Park L. 201 2nd Street NW □ 4 3 2 1 McIntire Park M. 375 Route 250 Bypass □ 4 3 2 1 Meade Park/Onesty Pool N. 300 Meade Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 Meadow Creek Valley O. Brandywine Drive □ 4 3 2 1 Northeast Park P. 1001 Sheridan Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 Pen Park Q. 1300 Pen Park Road □ 4 3 2 1 Quarry Park R. 427 Quarry Road □ 4 3 2 1 Riverview Park &Trail S. 298 Riverside Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 Rives Park T. 926 Rives Street □ 4 3 2 1 Schenk’s Greenway U. 711 McIntire Road □ 4 3 2 1 Starr Hill Park V. 7th Street NW & Elsom Street □ 4 3 2 1 Tonsler Park W. 500 Cherry Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 X. Washington Park/Pool 1001 Preston Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 Y. Warner Parkway Trail 250 Bypass to Rio Road □ 4 3 2 1 3 A3 (continued). Please indicate below the parks you have visited for recreational purposes in the last 12 months. Check box next to any For each park you visited, how often did you visit? parks you Park Locations have visited Almost Once or Once or twice Less than in past 12 every day twice a week a month once a month months AA. Greenstone on 5 Community Center □ th 752 Blue Ridge Commons 4 3 2 1 BB. Friendship Court Community Center 418 Garret Street □ 4 3 2 1 CC. South First Street Community Center 1001 S. First Street □ 4 3 2 1 DD. Westhaven Community Center 801 Hardy Drive □ 4 3 2 1 EE. Smith Aquatics & Fitness Center 1000-A Cherry Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 FF. Crow Recreation Center 1700 Rose Hill Drive □ 4 3 2 1 GG. Key Recreation Center 800 Market Street □ 4 3 2 1 HH. Washington Park Recreation Center 1001 Preston Avenue □ 4 3 2 1 II. Carver Recreation Center 233 4th Street NW □ 4 3 2 1 JJ. Meadowcreek Gardens Behind Old English Inn □ 4 3 2 1 4 A4. On a scale of 5 to 1 where 5 means “Strongly Agree” and 1 means “Strongly Disagree,” please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly Strongly I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 5 4 3 2 1 Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and B. 5 4 3 2 1 strengthen our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 5 4 3 2 1 D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 5 4 3 2 1 E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 5 4 3 2 1 F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 5 4 3 2 1 G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 5 4 3 2 1 H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 5 4 3 2 1 I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 5 4 3 2 1 J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 5 4 3 2 1 Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise K. be unable to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with 5 4 3 2 1 disabilities) A5. Which THREE statements from the list in Question A4 (above) are MOST IMPORTANT for the Parks & Recreation Dept. to do for you and members of your household? [Use the letters in Question A4 above to indicate your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices, or circle ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE.’] 1st: ______ 2nd: ______ 3rd: ______ NONE OF THE ABOVE A6. Which THREE from the list in Question A4 (above) are MOST IMPORTANT for the Parks & Recreation Dept. to do for the future of Charlottesville? [Use the letters in Question A4 above to indicate your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices, or circle ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE.’] 1st: ______ 2nd: ______ 3rd: ______ NONE OF THE ABOVE 5 A7. In the table below, please indicate if YOU or any member of your HOUSEHOLD has a need for each type of park or facility listed in Charlottesville. If YES, please answer the questions to the right of the park or facility regarding “How Well are Your Needs Being Met?” and “How Many Times Did You Use this Type of Park or Facility During the Past 12 Months?” If NO, please go to the next type of park or facility. For each one you have a need Check box For each one you have a need for, how many times did you for, how well are your needs if you have use this type of park or facility being met? (Circle ONE Type of Park or Facility in a need for in Charlottesville in the past 12 Response) this type of months? Charlottesville park or Less facility in Almost Once or Once or Fully Mostly Partly Not than every twice a twice a C’ville Met Met Met Met once a day week month month Small neighborhood A. parks you can walk to □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Multi-use parks near B. your home □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 C. Parks along streams or the Rivanna River □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 D. Playgrounds □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 E. Open play areas □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 F. Picnic shelters/areas □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 G. Off-leash dog parks □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 H. Open Space areas □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 I. Community garden plots □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 J. Paved trails □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 K. Unpaved paths □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 L. Hard surface trails used for commuting □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 A8. Which THREE of the parks or facilities from the list in Question A7 (above) are MOST IMPORTANT to your household? [Use the letters in Question A7 above to indicate your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, choices, or circle ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’.] 1st: ______ 2nd: ______ 3rd: ______ NONE OF THE ABOVE 6 A9. Please indicate if YOU or any member of your HOUSEHOLD has a need for each type of Outdoor or Indoor facility listed below. If you do have a need, please answer the questions to the right of the facility regarding “how well are your needs being met?” and “how many times did you use this type of park or facility during the past 12 months?” For each one you have a need For each one you have a need for, Check for, how well are your needs how many times did you use this box if being met? (Circle ONE type of facility in the past 12 you have Response) months? Type of Park or Facility a need for this Once or Once or Less than Fully Mostly Partly Almost type of Met Met Met Not Met every day twice a twice a once a facility week month month Outdoor Facilities A. Adult Baseball □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 B. Little League Baseball □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 C. Adult and Girls Softball fields □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Soccer/football/lacrosse/field D. hockey/rugby fields □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 E. Outdoor Pickle Ball courts □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 F. Outdoor tennis courts □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 G. Basketball/multi-use courts □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 H. Golf courses □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 I. Skate Park □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 J. Water parks & spray-grounds □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 K. Batting Cages □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 L. Miniature Golf □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Indoor Facilities M. Gyms (basketball, volleyball, etc.) □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 N. Indoor swimming pools □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 O. Exercise & fitness facilities □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 P. Indoor rock climbing walls □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Q. Indoor fields □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 R. Indoor Pickle Ball courts □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 S. Indoor tennis courts □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 T. Gymnastics □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 U. Community Center □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 V. Recreation Center □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 W. Nature Centers □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 A10. Which THREE of the outdoor or indoor facilities from the list in Question A9 (above) are MOST IMPORTANT to your household? [Use the letters in Question A9 above to indicate your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices, or circle ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’.] 1st: ______ 2nd: ______ 3rd: ______ NONE OF THE ABOVE 7 A11. Please indicate if YOU or any member of your HOUSEHOLD has a need for each Program or Activity listed below. If YES, please answer the other questions on the row. Check box if If you have this need: How If you have this need:, you have a well are your needs being Check box if you have Type of Program or Activity need for this met? used this program or program or activity during the past 12 activity Fully Mostly Partly Not months Met Met Met Met A. Summer/Holiday day camps □ 4 3 2 1 □ B. Community Special events, concerts □ 4 3 2 1 □ C. Volunteering □ 4 3 2 1 □ D. Programs that families participate in □ 4 3 2 1 □ E. Programs for people with disabilities □ 4 3 2 1 □ F. Swim lessons □ 4 3 2 1 □ G. Competitive swimming □ 4 3 2 1 □ H. Adult exercise/fitness □ 4 3 2 1 □ I. Early Childhood Programming □ 4 3 2 1 □ J. Youth art, dance, music, performing arts □ 4 3 2 1 □ K. Jogging/Running leagues and competitions □ 4 3 2 1 □ L. Nature/environmental programs, camps □ 4 3 2 1 □ M. Pickleball lessons, leagues, competition □ 4 3 2 1 □ N. Science/technology programs □ 4 3 2 1 □ O. Golf lessons, leagues □ 4 3 2 1 □ P. Active Senior Programming □ 4 3 2 1 □ Q. Skateboard lessons, competition □ 4 3 2 1 □ R. Adult art, dance, music, performing arts □ 4 3 2 1 □ S. Tennis lessons, leagues, tournaments □ 4 3 2 1 □ T. Gymnastics & Tumbling □ 4 3 2 1 □ Outdoor Adventure Programs (kayaking, U. backpacking, rappelling, climbing, travel) □ 4 3 2 1 □ V. Drop-in Child Care □ 4 3 2 1 □ W. Youth Sports Programs □ 4 3 2 1 □ Open Gym Drop-in Play X. (Pickup basketball, volleyball, etc.) □ 4 3 2 1 □ Y. Adult sports programs (leagues, competition) □ 4 3 2 1 □ A12. Which THREE programs in Question A11 (above) are MOST IMPORTANT to each member of your household? [For each member of your household, write-in their age and the letter of the programs from Question A11 that are your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices.] Age 1st program 2nd program 3rd program st 1 member of household 2nd member of household 3rd member of household 4th member of household 5th member of household 6th member of household 7th member of household 8th member of household 9th member of household 10th member of household 11th member of household 12th member of household 8 A13. The following are actions the Parks & Recreation Department could take to improve the Parks and Recreation system. Please indicate whether you would be very supportive, somewhat supportive, not supportive, or not sure of each action by circling the number next to the action. Very Somewhat Not How supportive are you of having the City… Not Sure Supportive Supportive Supportive Purchase land to preserve open space and A. 1 2 3 9 natural areas Upgrade/renovate existing park buildings and B. 1 2 3 9 facilities C. Restore/maintain natural areas 1 2 3 9 D. Purchase land for developing athletic fields 1 2 3 9 Expand/renovate walking/biking trails E. 1 2 3 9 and connect existing trails Develop smaller parks with a greater variety F. of recreational facilities that serve a wider 1 2 3 9 area G. Expand/renovate program and class spaces 1 2 3 9 Purchase land for passive recreational uses H. 1 2 3 9 (such as trails, picnic areas, and shelters) Upgrade/renovate athletic fields, including I. 1 2 3 9 lighting J. Develop new athletic fields 1 2 3 9 K. Purchase historic sites for preservation 1 2 3 9 Upgrade/renovate aquatic facilities at existing L. 1 2 3 9 recreation centers M. Ensure there are parks in all parts of the City 1 2 3 9 N. Restore/maintain historic areas 1 2 3 9 Upgrade/renovate fitness facilities at existing O. 1 2 3 9 recreation centers P. Purchase land for recreational facilities 1 2 3 9 Develop large parks with a greater variety of Q. 1 2 3 9 recreational facilities that serve a wider area R. Upgrade/renovate existing golf facilities 1 2 3 9 A14. Which THREE items from the list in question A13 (above) would you be most willing to fund with your City tax dollars? [Write in the letters below using the letters from the list in Question A13 above or circle ‘NONE’.] 1st: ___ 2nd: ___ 3rd: ___ NONE 9 A15. If an additional $100 were available for Parks and Recreation facilities in Charlottesville, how would you allocate the funds among the items listed below? [Please be sure your allocation adds to $100.] $ Acquire new parkland and open space $ Repair/maintain existing parks and infrastructure $ Conserve and maintain natural resources $ Conserve and maintain historic resources $ Upgrade/expand existing park & recreation facilities $ Develop new recreation and parks facilities $ 100 TOTAL B. Farmers Markets B1. Please indicate if YOU or any member of your HOUSEHOLD has a need for each type of Farmers Market listed below by checking the box. If YES, please answer the questions to the right of the farmers market regarding “how well are your needs being met?” and “how many times did you use this type of farmers market in the past 12 months?” For each one you have a need Check box if you If Yes, how well are your for, how many times did you have a needs being met? use this type of farmers market in the past 12 months? Type of Farmers Market need for this Less Almost Once or Once or Fully Mostly Partly Not than Farmers Met Met Met Met every twice a twice a once a Market? day week month month City Market (April thru A. Thanksgiving) □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Farmers in the Park (May B. thru September) □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Holiday Market C. (Thanksgiving to Christmas) □ 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 10 C. Other issues C1. On a scale of 10 to 1, with 10 being “Excellent” and 1 being “Poor,” please circle the number that best represents how you would rate your satisfaction with the Charlottesville park system overall? Excellent Neutral Poor 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C2. How important are high-quality parks, trails, recreation facilities and services to the quality of life in Charlottesville? (Read list, select one) 1 Very important 2 Important 3 Somewhat important 4 Neutral 5 Somewhat unimportant 6 Unimportant 7 Very unimportant C3. How would you rate the overall performance of Charlottesville Parks & Recreation in communicating and informing the public on programs and services? (Read list, select one) 1 Excellent 2 Above Average 3 Average 4 Below Average 5 Poor C4. Please inform us of all the ways that you learn about Charlottesville Parks & Recreation programs and services. (Check all that apply)  News Media (TV, radio, newspaper)  Social Media  School Fliers  Email Communications  Program Guide  Website  Visited/Called a Parks & Recreation Office  Charlottesville Parks & Recreation App  Word of Mouth  Other (specify): _________________________________________________________  Don’t Know/Don’t Recall 11 D. Demographics D1. What is your age? ________________________ D2. How many years have you lived in the City of Charlottesville? _________________ years D3. Are you a full-time college student attending a school located in Charlottesville? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know/Prefer not to say D4. What is your gender? 1 Male 2 Female 3 Other 4 Prefer not to say D5. Which of the following best describes your home? 1 Single-family house 2 Townhouse/duplex 3 Apartment 4 Condominium 5 Other (please specify): ___________________________________________________ D6. Are you or other members of your household of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ancestry? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don’t know/Prefer not to say D7. Which of the following best describes your race? (Check all that apply.)  African American/Black  American Indian/Native American  Asian/Pacific Islander  White/Caucasian  Other: ______________ D8. What was your approximate pre-tax household income in the 2016 calendar year? 1 Under $25,000 2 $25,000-$49,999 3 $50,000-$74,999 4 $75,000-$99,999 5 $100,000-$149,999 6 $150,000 or more 7 Don’t know/Prefer not to say D9. Please share any additional park & recreation comments or concerns you or your household may have: This concludes the survey. Thank you for your time! 12 Dear Charlottesville City Resident: Dear Charlottesville City Resident: Recently the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia Recently the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia mailed you a survey asking for your input to help guide the City of mailed you a survey asking for your input to help guide the City of Charlottesville’s new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Charlottesville’s new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If you have already returned your survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If you have already returned your survey, please accept our sincere thanks. You don’t need to do anything more. If you have not responded yet, please try You don’t need to do anything more. If you have not responded yet, please try to do so today. to do so today. Your address was randomly selected in a small sample drawn from a large Your address was randomly selected in a small sample drawn from a large number of Charlottesville addresses; therefore, your individual response is number of Charlottesville addresses; therefore, your individual response is very important. very important. If by some chance you did not receive the survey, please e-mail or call us If by some chance you did not receive the survey, please e-mail or call us (surveys@virginia.edu, 434-243-5232) and we will send you a replacement. (surveys@virginia.edu, 434-243-5232) and we will send you a replacement. Thank you! Thank you! Thomas M. Guterbock, Director Thomas M. Guterbock, Director Center for Survey Research Center for Survey Research University of Virginia University of Virginia Dear Charlottesville City Resident: Dear Charlottesville City Resident: Recently the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia Recently the Center for Survey Research (CSR) at the University of Virginia mailed you a survey asking for your input to help guide the City of mailed you a survey asking for your input to help guide the City of Charlottesville’s new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Charlottesville’s new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If you have already returned your survey, please accept our sincere thanks. If you have already returned your survey, please accept our sincere thanks. You don’t need to do anything more. If you have not responded yet, please try You don’t need to do anything more. If you have not responded yet, please try to do so today. to do so today. Your address was randomly selected in a small sample drawn from a large Your address was randomly selected in a small sample drawn from a large number of Charlottesville addresses; therefore, your individual response is number of Charlottesville addresses; therefore, your individual response is very important. very important. If by some chance you did not receive the survey, please e-mail or call us If by some chance you did not receive the survey, please e-mail or call us (surveys@virginia.edu, 434-243-5232) and we will send you a replacement. (surveys@virginia.edu, 434-243-5232) and we will send you a replacement. Thank you! Thank you! Thomas M. Guterbock, Director Thomas M. Guterbock, Director Center for Survey Research Center for Survey Research University of Virginia University of Virginia Center for Survey Research Center for Survey Research University of Virginia University of Virginia PO Box 400767 PO Box 400767 Charlottesville VA 22904-4767 Charlottesville VA 22904-4767 Center for Survey Research Center for Survey Research University of Virginia University of Virginia PO Box 400767 PO Box 400767 Charlottesville VA 22904-4767 Charlottesville VA 22904-4767 2400 Old Ivy Road P.O. Box 400767 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4767 Tel: (434) 243-5222 Fax: (434) 243-5233 www.virginia.edu/surveys A Unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service surveys@virginia.edu December 2017 ID: «CSRID» Charlottesville Residents Living At«AddressBlock» Dear Charlottesville Residents: We’ve tried to contact you recently by mail to ask for your help with an important survey. We haven’t registered a response yet, so we’re trying one more time. The City of Charlottesville is creating a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Your opinions can influence that plan. Your address is part of a small random sample of City addresses selected to receive this survey, so your participation is important. Please complete and return the enclosed survey. The survey will close on December 31. Even if you don’t use recreational facilities or parks, it is very important that we hear from you to get a complete picture of all Charlottesville residents. Your answers will be confidential. Our sample list does not include names. It only has addresses. Your answers will never be reported with your address. The study ID number on this letter and other survey materials is used only to allow us to track responses. Who should complete the survey? The person or people in your household who are most familiar with the entire household’s use of recreational facilities and parks should complete it. But if your household is roommates living together and you don’t know the information for other people living at your address, you can treat yourself as a household of one person and complete the survey. If you have any questions or comments about the survey or need assistance to complete it, please contact me at jimellis@virginia.edu or 434-243-5224. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Cordially, James M. Ellis, Jr., Ph.D. Director of Research Center for Survey Research 2017 CHARLOTTESVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT Purpose of the survey The 2017 Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Survey was designed to capture and provide feedback on residents’ experience with Charlottesville Parks, facilities and programs. The survey also was designed to elicit feedback about potential future parks, athletic opportunities (indoor/outdoor), and programs. The survey was sponsored and funded by the City of Charlottesville Division of Parks (“Parks”). Its development and administration was a collaborative effort between Parks and the Center for Survey Research (CSR), a unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (CCPS) at the University of Virginia. Summary of Findings • 80% of Charlottesville residents rate the physical condition of they city’s park, trails, and facilities as “excellent” or “good.” • Eight-in-10 residents rate their overall satisfaction with the city’s park system as 7 or higher on a 10-point scale (6-in-10 rate it 8 or higher). • When asked what they would most like Parks and Recreation to prioritize, most frequently identified was to preserve open space and the environment, to provide recreation opportunities for people who otherwise would be unable to (particularly for children and teens), and to offer opportunities to improve physical health and fitness. • Residents are most looking for small neighborhood parks they can walk to, parks along streams or the Rivanna River, and more paved trails and unpaved paths. • Regarding outdoor facilities, water parks and spray-grounds, outdoor tennis courts, and athletic fields received the most support. • As for indoor facilities, exercise and fitness centers, indoor swimming pools, and gymnasiums got the most backing. • For activities and programs, community special events like concerts, adult exercise/fitness, and outdoor adventure programs received the most attention. 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Methodology All Charlottesville residents 18 years old and over were included in the sample and had a chance of being included in the 2,100 residents who received an invitation to participate (Map 1, next page). Neighborhoods of the city with traditionally low response rates to surveys were oversampled.1 Those randomly chosen received a paper advance notification letter and then later were mailed a paper survey. The questionnaire asked for detailed feedback about respondents’ experience with Charlottesville parks, programs, and facilities. Respondents were promised confidentiality. Of the 2,100 Charlottesville residents who received a survey, 491 sent back a completed response (Map 2, next page). All completed cases were included in the final data file and analyses reflect only complete responses. During the collection stage, it was discovered that 280 surveys were sent to residents who lived outside the city limits. These were identified and were not included in the final tally. To offset this, a new batch of 280 invitations were sent to city residents and were ultimately integrated in with the other eligible completes. The final response rate for the survey was 23.4%. The questionnaire was designed and developed through collaboration among CSR and Parks staff. It was only administered in English. The data were not weighted for analysis. The sampling error for the survey at the 95% level of confidence is +/- 4.4 percentage points. The demographics of those who participated in the survey differed in some important ways from the known demographics of Charlottesville’s population. As detailed in the table below (next page), there was a higher percent of survey participants that are women, white, over 65 years of age, live in a single-family home, and in higher income groups. This is a typical occurrence in non-quota probability surveys in the United States presently. 1 10th & Page, Barracks Road, Fifeville, Jefferson Park Ave, Lewis Mtn., Ridge St., Rose Hill, Starr Hill, The Meadows, Venable. 2 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY DEMOGRAPHIC COMPARISON Charlottesville Survey Gender Female 52% 64% Male 48% 36% Hispanic Yes 5% 5% No 95% 95% Race White 70% 77% Black or African American 19% 11% Asian 8% 7% Other 3% 5% Age 18-24 16% 8% 25-39 28% 35% 40-64 30% 37% 65+ 10% 21% Type of house Single Family House 51% 63% Townhouse/duplex 10% 12% Apartment/Condo 38% 23% Other 1% 1% Household income Under $25,000 28% 17% $25,000 - $49,999 21% 23% $50,000 - $74,999 15% 19% $75,000 - $99,999 11% 15% $100,000 - $149,999 13% 15% $150,000 or more 11% 13% 3 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Main Findings 4 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY 5 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY 6 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY 7 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY APPENDIX 1 Open-Ended Responses Suggestions for playgrounds/parks/outdoor space Would love to see more playgrounds. Please, please, please consider fencing in a playground such as Claudius Crozet Park. It is so helpful for little ones and their caregivers. The tall playground at McGuffey Park seems very dangerous so we stopped going due to the risk of falling. We attended and loved the Super Hero Run and Masquerade Ball. We are excited about date night drop offs and love activities at the Carver. Would like to see unique upgraded playground equipment at some parks. Provide shelter for people who are living/sleeping on downtown mall area. Tonsler Park continuously has older adults selling drugs and participating in what appears as inappropriate behavior. it has a great playground but the sketchy crowd has definitely been a deterrent. Carver Recreation Center needs a baby changing station in the downstairs bathroom. Please get serious about invasive plant species. They are devouring and destroying our environment. Turn off sports field lights when not in use. The Charlottesville High School lights are horrible. As Charlottesville continues to grow and get denser, it is vital that open space & trees are preserved, not developed. Also, more swim lessons are needed - they fill up within 10 minutes of registration. If you all are going to expand natural areas, be sure to consult on natural, non-invasive species! Shade especially from trees is really important to help stay outside! Plus roots, leaves, etc. are very interesting to kids and adults--strongly prefer more trees to more open space/fields/mowing lawns. Thank you! Replant trees in parks when they are lost; support passive recreation, improve trails, work with other departments to maximize resources. Preservation of trees and green areas is most critical. You also do an excellent job with the flowers in parks and along streets. Thank you! Belmont park has no shelter. Washington Park needs a complete makeover exercise and family shelters for events. Thank you for your hard work! I would love some type of water in Meadowcreek Community Garden. We live near Greenleaf Park and would love for the pavilion to be reservable. The park gets wild with birthday parties over the summer and there is always trash left that animals get into. Greenleaf could also use a large shade canopy over the baby swings. Belmont park has no shelter. We struggle to feel safe using some facilities, especially trails and parks, alone/at dark. I know this is a bigger issue than just the Parks & Rec service can fix, but this dramatically impacts our use of the public facilities. I would like to feel that the parking is safe at the parks so I feel like my car is safe while I am walking. Natural area - Ivy Creek does not need more rec usage. Downtown mall maintenance. 8 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Dog Parks I love going to the parks. I use Beaver Creek Crozet and Mount Springs a lot. I hate off leash dogs running up on me, stop building in the parks, stop improving them, raising the prices so folks can't use unless they are low income and get a waiver. You put basketball hoops in Fifeville park and now teens linger in the park at night and make noise. People from other neighborhoods come use the hoops. I used to go to McIntire before it was ruined, why put a membership needed in a public park? No parking downtown, Meade Park is too crowded, Riverview Park and Trail used to be nice, but now the running club yuppies have taken it over, Tonsler Park has drug dealers out in the open. You took the pools for the kids what's next? (provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens A4) My neighborhood first had a Habitat Community added to one side and now UVA expanding onto the other. I don't want anymore so- called improvements to my neighborhood, UVA is pushing us out! Taking our homes for UVA rentals and out streets for free parking. Stay out of my neighborhood. If you keep up historical sites, will you pick and choose which ones are politically correct? Only black history has any interest to cville. White history is being erased. I need large off-leash dog parks! I like to train my dogs to walk off leash, but there aren't enough large, fenced areas to practice. Plenty of tiny pens, but that doesn't work at all. Azalea and Darden Towe dog parks are great, except they have become mud pits after the drought. Please seed or sod or mulch when possible! Please create an off-leash walkable trail/dog park or designate one of the many parks we have for this purpose. More dog parks/off leash street trails. The city would be well served to create a much friendlier dog environment for the huge number of pet owners! There are people that would use the parks daily regardless of weather. Take a lesson from Boulder, CO. I like to walk my dog. Azalea Dog Park is not suitable to me. it's horrible. Charlottesville is a great city but it definitely needs more off leash dog parks. Please develop more off-leash dog parks and consider a rowing/paddling/kayak rec activity. Maintenance of Azalea dog park sorely needed! More dog parks and off leash trails please! Our neighborhood (Meadows) has no park, and no where to take our dog off-leash. Need off leash dog park space, especially in Belmont Park or River Park. Restroom/trash Please update restroom facilities at parks. Add water fountains to parks. C'ville has never had water fountains at park or on the mall. Everything is good, but they need to more focus on restrooms, because they are dirty and sometimes there is no toilet paper. Please make sure that bathrooms at the parks are improved re: foul smells. There must be a product out there that can do this. Ensure that the public parks have public fountains, restrooms, and recycling bins. We also think that including solar panels on top of the restrooms. Police current parks better to avoid trash dumping. If Parks and Rec is supposed to keep the downtown mall area clean and free of litter, they don't do it. Main route to mall from Water St. parking garage always filthy and an embarrassment--also mentioned by tourists and football game folks. There are not enough trash cans around the city and in the parks. Please finish the Botanical Gardens - if they are anything like Duke or Dallas, they will be very popular. 9 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY We need a bigger space for the garden at Muchie Drive and a watering system and a trash can. The fence is also too low. Suggestions for programs and gym facilities I am disappointed in lack of fitness classes. There was a large number when I joined (zumba, pump 360) but constant turnover in instructors has left a very empty schedule Planning to rejoin gym in 2018. Smith and Carver have good gym facilities if combined. Have to plan ahead which gym depending on type of workout. I would love an adult exercise facility that is cheaper than other options in town. The worst changes made by Parks and Rec was the elimination of the summer outdoor day camps at the neighborhood parks. Children use to be conditioned to play outside. Now they just want an electronic device. Need camps and recreation services for youth on the autism spectrum, there are services for more severe disabilities and for neuro-typical youth but not for ASD. I would like to see more scholarship funding for parks and rec. As a single mom, the pricing for the programs is often times too expensive for me to afford. More activities for youth that would be free to teenagers. Skating program could be offered more days. No parking for seniors at farmers in the park. We need better parks close to our house with some fun activities, competitions. I would like a "conversation park" where it would [be] easy to talk to other citizens about life in Charlottesville. I like things like the rain barrel workshop. [I] was hoping for it again but didn't hear about it if they did. My friends and i would like to be able to hold scrabble tournaments using a low cost recreation center for a weekend. Skate park will make this city much more community oriented. We love and use the parks all the time. We would love to see more rec/fitness facilities. We wish city market was year round!!!! This survey focuses too much on facilities and not nearly enough on recreation, the department's weakness. The department's many day time classes for young children cater to affluent, mostly Caucasian families. Also no questions about staff, some of whom are great, and some of whom are unfriendly and surly. It would be so wonderful to have free fitness, aquatic sauna and steam room, and hot tub facilities for the community. The fitness equipment could be developed to generate energy instead of using it, thus sustainable and accessible! More swimming lessons. I would be 150% more likely to regularly use the Smith Aquatic Center if it had a sauna or hot tub, even just a small one. I've gone swimming there before and I got cold! it was not fun. Indoor pools are great for winter exercise but not if I can't warm back up. Thank you. (also, I love the free roller skating at Carver. Please keep this wonderful program!) At my age, the aquatics are the most doable and useful if full range health. I require (need) hot tub jets that massage aches and joints and do not require tips. Purification in sauna is also a health plus! Thank you. I think P&R is doing a good job. Keep Washington Park pool alive! The fees for entering pool facilities is too high. 10 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Sports Facilities We need small lighted outdoor urban soccer surfaces. Can be on an old/underused tennis court. We want racquetball courts through Parks and Rec. Wife would like outdoor racquet ball courts. Please make more outdoor basketball courts, particularly at Meade Park. Thank you for conducting this survey. I think it is important and helps inform your decisions! Outdoor tennis courts are only available if I want to drive to them. Charlottesville desperately needs large, multi-use athletic parks like Richmond has. There is no public baseball facility for kids over age 12 teaching the sport in this area. Competitive players have to travel to Richmond to compete. Please consider more safe bike trails so kids can safely bike within city limits. Bike trails separate from the road, not just narrow bike lanes. Washington Park top basketball court in need of repair. Court has been cracked uneven for over 5-7 years which cause a hazard when playing on basketball court. Poor lighting on playground and basketball court. You didn't include school-sited parks (CHS, Burnley Moran) which I mostly use. I understand they are maintained by Parks and Rec. Both of these schools have good basketball courts and CHS is great for lap running and tennis, too! I play basketball and I'd love to play [at Washington Park] more but it's too dangerous. The court out-of-bounds line ends right where the pavement ends. So if you step out of bounds you step off of the pavement and the drop is several inches. I feel like you can't play hard under the basket or you might step out and twist or break your ankle! Please fix the court at Washington Park! And could you put in a water fountain? Open field space for soccer, frisbee, football, with lighting and public use doesn't seem to exist. Pen Park tennis courts are in need of repair and lighting of the other 4 courts. I think that providing affordable access to parks and fitness facilities for as many residents as possible should be the central goal of Parks & Rec. Playground accessible to children with disabilities. Programs for Adults Most men over 40 yrs old have lower back issues. Yoga classes are almost exclusively for women. No whirlpools in aquatic center which is a glorified kiddie pool No abdominal and back exercise machines at any facility. We used more facilities when we had a school age child. As adults it would be nice to have more adult programs that are meaningful and thought provoking. Provide an adult flag football league. 'Cville social' league is poorly run and most players are looking for alternative to that organization. Senior basketball program should have been maintained with original times and rules. Meadowcreek Golf Course should be more accommodating of VSGA members. Could you add adult outdoor free to use fitness equipment? I've seen it in parks in Indiana, Texas, Canada, and Europe. I see folks doing dips and exercise on bike racks and so forth. More evening classes for 50+ years including "arthritis" and other swim classes currently available only during day time. We are two single women in our 30's and would love more (any!?) opportunities to meet other adults - without having the activity tied to children. Need more senior activities. Bikes & Trails We love to bike. Please give us more trails paved for that. Trails away from roads are best. Thank you! 11 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY We would really like to have extensive park trails away from cars, parking lots, etc. for hiking. I want more paved wheelchair usable trails in nature. More bike lanes and connecting trails! More green spaces! Trails are not well maintained and need more developments and connections. Most of all, I'd like to see a safe network of paths (like the John Warner trail) connecting the existing parks. More than a sidewalk, less than a road. The walking/biking trails are not very long and do not come near my house. Please connect them. We really need safe bike paths to get downtown. Currently they are not continuous, and I've heard of cars hurting cyclists. Safe bike trails for more commuting around town. Would love a really good bike trail, off the road, for commuting from downtown to UVA and a bathroom at each park! More safe bike commuting options - to commute to work and for recreation, It would make a big difference in day to day life. More trails and expand existing trail system for recreational and alternative transportation use. Partner with Albemarle County, developers, and private organizations (like the Rivanna Trail). Appreciate what you do and wish for you to do all you can to make C-ville a more pedestrian friendly, nature-filled city! Bike trails! We really enjoy the trail systems (paved and dirt trails). I enjoy trail running and I also cycle to work every day. This town needs more street lights. Very dark and dangerous for commuters. Thanks! I don't feel safe on Riverview trail. It always show signs of people living there. Charlottesville trails like Monticello trails. Existing parks and trails and community facilities are very adequate! Safety is now an important factor for outdoor trails. Expanding/renovating walking/biking trails and connecting existing trails would be our family's suggestion for Cville Parks and Rec's focus. Thank you. Mountain bike trail access is the top priority for my wife and I as that is our primary form of recreation/exercise. More bike and running trails. Bike trails would be great! Parks and Recreation should work with city transportation and Albemarle to expand and improve the trail/bike lane network. Running trails and cycling commuting infrastructure are most important to us. Upgrading and fixing overly polluting buses that are underused is also key! Charlottesville needs more corridors for pleasant walking and cycling--parkways for pedestrians. We would use parks more if there were walkable parks and trails. Also we used to use the parks almost daily when our kids were little. Lots of great playgrounds. Rivanna River Lighting system in Forest Hills Park has been spotty. Rivanna Trail System needs work. [There are] lots of old trail pieces and old signs, easy to get lost near 5th st. Retired. Enjoy the peace and quiet along the Rivanna Trail. The trail needs to be maintained. The trees are not very healthy. My husband pulls the vines whenever he walks past a tree that is choking! Safety of Rivanna Trail and reduction of roots and things you can trip on. Please preserve and restore land along the Rivanna - improve its presence in our city (for the public)! Thank you! 12 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Build access tunnel for Rivanna Trail under Rivanna River and build bridge at Moore's Creek - complete the loop. I would like water's edge car access to Ragged Mt. Reservoir for canoe/kayak (i.e. unlock the gate) use. Also ban mountain bikes at Ragged Mt. Reservoir Not sure if part of Charlottesville Parks and Rec, but please connect the entire Rivanna Trail loop!!! Enjoy the Rivanna Trail frequently. You're doing great. My neighborhood (Locust Grove) would LOVE to see improvement to the Rivanna River - especially the strip on River Rd. Imagine if there were parks and community gathering spaces instead of parking lots and industrial zones. Who doesn't want to hang out next to a river?? Thanks!! Confederate Statues Do not try to change history. Remember that we have to know the past as not to repeat it in the future. Please do not destroy historical sites. Educate, re-contextualize. Destruction is a dereliction of your duty. It is the easy way out. Teach People. Covering and attempting to remove General Lee's statue is a disgrace to the U.S. and its history. You should be ashamed. He dedicated his entire life to this nation and the Commonwealth of Virginia. He serves as a lasting reminder of valor, integrity, and honor. "Virginia is my country, her I will obey, however lamentable the fate to which it may subject me." R. E. Lee. Very disappointed in City Council's decision to move monuments from historic parks. i personally know hundreds of long time c'ville residents that agree!!! that have no voice. The garbage bags covering the statues in Lee Park and Jackson Park are an eyesore. Keep up the great work! However the plastic tarps are an eyesore in our lovely parks. Please remove them. Better to improve fitness in our town. I would prefer that Lee Park and Jackson Park keep their traditional names. I would not like any of my tax money to go toward preserving confederate statues or memorabilia even if they are considered "historic". Thank you. There are too many Nazis in our parks. Keep our historic monuments. Stop injecting politics and erasing facts-real tragedy. We enjoy [the] large number of parks available. I think they need to uncover the monuments. Protect historic statues and monuments. Please stop wasting money on Lee and Jackson Parks. We could have some really great programs and parks with all that money. Fuck Nazis. Abolish the police (would drastically improve this town). The Jackson statue is beautiful with the angels--the Lee statue is not--but both shrouds must come down. Cover the Lewis + Clark statue--why is Sacagawea cowering? The city's P+R system does improve quality of life in Cville. The city should focus on maintaining what they have instead of expanding w/ more of the same and invest in preserving historical spaces. Don't try to compete with the YMCA for indoor fitness facilities. City Markets Please bring back the flea market! I miss Dan Carpenter! Please make renting out less expensive, so others (low income persons) can use it. (afford it.) Thank you! *thanks for the passes! City market could use a friendlier manager. Regarding the farmers market, more affordable local produce like Staunton's would be an improvement. 13 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY I gave up on the farmers market because of the outrageous prices the farmers charge & it's hard to park. Such markets are supposed to offer local produce [???] for top dollar. The farmers charge more than integral yoga for comparative produce, and integral yoga has overhead. Other Suggestions Keep preserving and expanding! I like that Charlottesville has a lot of public space. i have concerns about UVA students encroachment into neighborhoods (I live in Fifeville.) Losing Main St. Arena will be bad for Charlottesville. Work with Friends of Cville Icepark and BRCC to get ice [rink] back in Charlottesville ASAP. Maintain what we have. Conservatively expand. It is great to know about these parks being present in Charlottesville, but I am not aware of any in my neighborhood. Had I known, I would frequent them more often! Interested in finding out more about resources and opportunities to use parks and recreation. Didn't know there are so many parks in Charlottesville. I do not go to these parks, don't know anything about them. I'm new to the area. It would be nice to receive a packet as to what is available. I was a Parks & Rec employee in another county and utilized the resources frequently! However, I feel the presence of this organization is not as strong in Charlottesville. You have such a large outdoor's community, but programs/events are limited. I am not sure how parks and recs communicate about programs and services, but I haven't seen anything. Perhaps and annual mailer with a review of available services would be beneficial. Get community more involved in maintaining parks so they feel more ownership of them too. The Meadows neighborhood need some Parks & Rec attention! Excellent parks and park system. Too many parks hurt a community. Do not expand. Maintain. It would be helpful if future versions of this survey started with a brief summary of what programs parks and rec includes (e.g., I didn't realize downtown mall and farmers' market were under your purview). This survey is too long for working folks. And there were no passes included. Spend less money on studies and more on implementation. I hope city funds did not pay for this survey as it is too long and tedious to consume. The water near Quarry Park needs attention. Other Now that I am retired, I don't use the parks and trails as I did when the boys were young. As we plan to have children, having a park within easy walking distance is becoming more of a priority- currently a 20 plus minute walk. Otherwise our priorities are more focused on conservation and maintaining public space than on classes, programing or fitness centers. I do NOT use any of these recreational services. I'm 75 years old, husband 79 and in nursing home! Thanks Now that Gold's Gym has closed and the pool option is no longer available, I will be using #1 Crow pool and #2 Smith pool on a regular basis. Now, I'll need to explore the City's facilities. I'm still learning about all that the P & R department has to offer! We work for UVA, so UVA facilities take care of a lot of our needs but we do rely on Parks and Rec for our kids' needs. 14 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY There are no parks within 2 miles of my home. I usually go to the Ragged Mountain Nature Area on O'hill to walk. I approve of all that is in the questionnaire but as you can see by my age many do not affect me. Previously lived in Charlottesville for 8 years but just moved back. I'm not concerned about the lack of good municipal golf in C'ville. Equal access to recreational facilities and activities for all members of our diverse community is one of our values. Positives The parks are beautiful and very useful to the people of C'ville. i just don't get around very easily. Thank you. Have a dog and use McIntire and Greenleaf Park almost daily. Love the sense of community these parks bring out - athletic fields and activities in McIntire are great and always in use. One of the reasons I've stayed in my neighborhood is the locations and maintenance of the parks (McIntire and Greenleaf). Great job on the Carver Center and Meadowcreek trail! Best improvements [since] we moved here. I think you do a good job with the funds given to you. As soon as my broken foot heals, I'll be on walking trails again. Rives park looks very nice. The city has done a great job on the park. We love the old golf course/McIntire park. It's a really special place to be and all golf courses would be better if we stopped mowing them. We are pretty happy with the locations and facilities available in the city, and judging from the number of others we see each time we go, other people are as well. Charlottesville is a wonderful place to live and I appreciate Parks and Rec. efforts. As compared to other cities I've lived in (New Orleans, Huntington Beach, CA, Savannah. GA) Charlottesville is beautifully green! Keep it up! Love trails, golf course and playing fields (Splash parks, softball, playgrounds). Kept in great shape!!! Overall amazing parks program. We love Northeast Park! Parks, recreation, trails, pools, and sports areas are very important. I wish they were used by everyone! Thank you for low-income opportunities you provide. Keep up the great work! Our family has gotten so much joy out of the Parks and Rec department and its facilities. Washington Pool staff were great to us this year!!! I am always impressed by the number and size of parks in this town and how well cared they are! We love the John Warner Parkway trail and connections. And we are REALLY looking forward to the McIntire Botanical Garden being developed! Thank you for asking! Very impressed with the number of city parks, and also that the city has conducted this survey to get resident input. Thanks for taking the time to get our opinions! I like all the park and recreation in the Charlottesville areas and want to take this time to thank the Charlottesville Authority for their good works. Thanks. The local parks, farmers market and trails are invaluable to our family. Thanks for all that you do for us. Our household is adequately served. Thanks for all you do. Keep up the good work! 15 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Thanks. Hope you have a happy holidays! Thanks for all the hard work you put in every day. Thanks for all your hard work! I like the paved walking trails in nature like Riverview Park best. Overall amazing parks program. Thank you for all that you all do! Keep up the good work. Thank you Parks and Rec for providing great spaces for our family to enjoy together! 16 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY APPENDIX 2 Full Methods Statement ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 2017 Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Survey was sponsored and funded by the City of Charlottesville Division of Parks (“Parks”). The survey’s development and administration was a collaborative effort between Parks and the Center for Survey Research (CSR), a unit of the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service (CCPS) at the University of Virginia. At CCPS, Jim Ellis and Shawn Bird supported this collaboration and brought CSR and Parks staff together in a staff meeting to help begin the process of conceptualizing the project. At Parks, Doug Ehman and Brian Daly led the process of designing the questionnaire, along with input from staff. Staff at CSR implemented the data collection protocol, performed data cleaning, analysis, and reporting under an agreement with Parks. Jim Ellis, Shawn Bird, Kara Fitzgibbon, Shayne Zaslow, Julia Nguyen, Hannah Shadowen, and Rena Yuan were responsible for day-to-day operations and worked on the project in a hands- on fashion. Dr. Thomas Guterbock, CSR Director, provided important guidance and direction in the development stages of the project. CSR offers many thanks for all of these contributions, but our most important thanks go to the Charlottesville residents who took the time to participate in the survey. Their willingness to share their opinions and ideas for improving Charlottesville parks, programs and facilities is greatly appreciated. 17 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY SURVEY METHODS Purpose of the Survey The survey was designed to capture and provide feedback on residents’ experience with current Charlottesville Parks, facilities and programs. The survey also was designed to elicit feedback about potential future parks, athletic opportunities (indoor/outdoor), and programs. General Approach To control production costs, it was decided to offer the survey to a sample of Charlottesville residents rather than attempt to contact all residents. All Charlottesville residents 18 years old and over were included in this probability sampling frame. Mail was selected as the mode of contact and a paper-based survey was the mode of data collection. All sampled residents with addresses were invited to participate in the survey. All sampled residents received a paper advance notification letter. The questionnaire asked for detailed feedback about respondents’ experience with Charlottesville Parks, programs, and facilities. Respondents were promised confidentiality and were advised that open-ended comments would be made available to Parks staff verbatim. Managing the List of Residents The population of interest for this project was captured in a smaple of 2,100 records acquired from the Marketing Systems Group. The total amount of surveys mailed in actuality was 2,380 because in the first batch of surveys delivered, there were 280 addresses outside of the City of Charlottesville, making them ineligible for the survey. As a result, another 280 households were sampled to replace the ineligible households from the original sample. The final sample discounts the 280 households in the original dataset leading to a final count of 2,100 geographically eligible households. Questionnaire Design and Development The questionnaire was designed and developed through collaboration among CSR and Parks leadership. First, CSR staff attended a meeting of Parks staff to become oriented to the programs and the current issues under consideration. CSR then sent a draft questionnaire to Parks for review and comment. After several rounds of drafts and comments, including Parks leadership vetting the questionnaire with others, the questionnaire was deemed ready for data collection. The questionnaire was relatively straightforward. First, residents were asked to provide general opinion about the Charlottesville parks, trails and recreation facilities. Residents were asked about the perceived benefits of recreation services. Residents were asked to indicate if they visited any Charlottesville Parks in the last year and how often they visited them. Then, residents were asked to provide feedback on recreational needs. They were asked to specifically indicate type of parks or facilities that are needed in Charlottesville, how well their needs are met in respect to their needs and how many times a year they used the park or facility they indicated was a priority. These questions were also asked for Charlottesville programs and activities. Residents were further asked about their support of possible future actions Parks could take to improve the Parks and Recreation system. Residents were also asked about their need for Farmers Markets, how well their needs have been met and how many times they utilized the particular Farmers Market. Next, respondents were asked to provide general opinions about the performance of Parks and demographic information. Finally, all respondents had a chance to contribute any other open-ended comments they wanted to make. The questionnaire was only administered in English. 18 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Survey Protocol A confidential protocol was used for this survey; that is, the respondent’s identity is known to CSR but the identity or associated responses are not shared with Parks and Recreation staff. This protocol allows the researcher to know explicitly who responded to the survey and who did not, thus allowing targeted follow-up communications to non-responders. The confidential protocol also provides strong protections against “ballot box stuffing,” in which a single respondent or a small group of respondents could theoretically fill out many surveys in an attempt to bias the results. The survey was conducted using the following steps. 1. An advance notification letter was sent to all sampled residents in the sample by first-class U.S. mail. This letter alerted the recipient to the upcoming survey. 2. A survey packet was sent to all sampled residents. 3. A reminder postcard was sent to non-respondents, reminding them about the survey and encouraging them to respond. 4. A thank-you postcard was sent to those who had responded to the survey to that point. 5. A second survey packet was sent to non-respondents, reminding them about the survey and setting a closeout date for data collection. Data Collection The original advance letters were sent in early November 2017 and the paper survey was launched in mid- November 2017. Table 1 below shows the dates on which specific tasks were accomplished. In December, the 280 replacement addresses were contacted with the advance letter being sent in mid-December 2017 and the paper survey being mailed in late December. Table 2 below shows the dates on which specific tasks were accomplished for the second mail series. Table 1: Data collection tasks and dates for Original Mail Series Task Date Send advance notification letters (batch 1) 11/6/2017 Mail Survey packet #1 11/14/2017 Reminder Postcard 11/20/2017 Thank You Postcard 11/20/2017 Mail Survey Packet #2 12/5/2017 Closeout Data Collection 2/6/2018 Table 2: Data collection tasks and dates for Mail Series 2 Task Date Send advance notification letters (batch 2) 12/19/2017 Mail Survey packet #1 12/21/2017 Reminder Postcard 1/3/2017 Thank You Postcard 1/3/2017 Mail Survey Packet #2 1/22/2018 Closeout Data Collection 2/6/2018 19 2017 PARKS AND RECREATION SURVEY Response Rate As noted, the survey invitation was emailed to 2,100 Charlottesville Residents. The survey was completed by 491 people with 35 partial completions. The partial completes include cases in which the respondent took a look at the first page or two and did not contribute any data, others are cases in which the respondent started the survey and terminated at some point before completing it. All 491 completed cases were included in the final data file and analyses reflect only complete responses. Table 3 shows the final dispositions for all cases. As noted above, part-way through data collection, 280 cases were deemed ineligible, so 280 new cases were added to replace the ineligible cases. The response rate disregards the original 280 ineligible, which is why the base remains 2,100. Table 3: Overall final dispositions Final Disposition N Percent Complete 491 23.4% Partial 35 1.7% Ineligible 3 0.1% Refused 5 0.2% Bad Address 245 11.7% No participation or contact 1221 58.1% Total 2,100 100.0% The response rate for the survey was calculated following the recommendations made by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.2 AAPOR RR3, which does not count partial completions in the numerator yielded a response rate of 23.4%. Sample Weighting The data were not weighted for analysis. Sampling Error and Survey Limitations The sampling error for the survey at the 95% level of confidence, assuming the minimum number of completed interviews (n=491) is +/- 4.4 percentage points. This means that if the survey were conducted 100 times and a random sample of size 491 residents responded to it each time, the results of this survey would be within 4.4 percentage points 95 out of 100 times. Note that surveys are susceptible to other sources of error besides sampling error that may be difficult or even impossible to measure. Survey results should be used and interpreted with appropriate care. For more information on the methods used in this study, please contact CSR at the University of Virginia: https://csr.coopercenter.org/ 2 The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys and In-Person Household Surveys. AAPOR. See also the AAPOR website, www.aapor.org. 20 A2. Physical Condition of all parks, trails and facilities visited in the past 12 months Condition Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Excellent 87 19.2% 19.2% Good 274 60.4% 79.5% Fair 46 10.1% 89.6% Poor 1 0.2% 89.9% Haven’t visited any 39 8.6% 98.5% Don’t know 7 1.5% 100.0% Total 454 100.0% Missing 37 Total + Missing 491 A3. Parks visited in the past 12 Months Parks visited For each park you visited, how often did you visit? Park Locations in past 12 Almost Once or Once or twice Less than months every day twice a week a month once a month A. Azalea Park 304 Old Lynchburg Rd. 23.0% 1.7% 9.6% 21.7% 67.0% Belmont Park B. 725 Stonehenge Ave. 22.4% 7.3% 8.2% 18.2% 66.4% Darden Towe Park C. 1445 Darden Towe Park Drive 37.9% 0.0% 8.9% 25.8% 65.3% D. Downtown Mall 76.8% 16.5% 34.4% 37.6% 11.5% E. Main St. E. Fifeville Park 5.3% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 84.0% 1200 King Street Forest Hills Park F. 1022 Forest Hills Ave. 18.7% 3.2% 12.9% 23.7% 60.2% Greenbrier Park G. 1933 Greenbrier Drive 11.0% 13.5% 11.5% 17.3% 57.7% Greenleaf Park H. 1598 Rose Hill Dr. 19.8% 1.0% 9.3% 24.7% 64.9% Justice Park (formerly Jackson Park) I. 405 E High Street 25.9% 4.8% 10.4% 25.6% 59.2% Jordan Park J. 1607 6th Street SE 3.7% 10.5% 0.0% 26.3% 63.2% Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park) K. 101 E Market Street 50.7% 4.4% 10.0% 33.3% 52.2% McGuffey Park L. 201 2nd Street NW 30.5% 2.7% 6.0% 20.8% 70.5% McIntire Park M. 375 Route 250 Bypass 35.0% 4.2% 12.6% 25.1% 58.1% Meade Park/Onesty Pool N. 300 Meade Avenue 21.8% 5.5% 11.0% 19.3% 64.2% Meadow Creek Valley O. Brandywine Drive 4.7% 8.3% 20.8% 37.5% 33.3% Northeast Park P. 1001 Sheridan Avenue 7.3% 2.7% 10.8% 37.8% 48.6% Q. Pen Park 30.5% 0.0% 8.8% 23.8% 67.3% 1300 Pen Park Road Quarry Park R. 427 Quarry Road 4.3% 4.0% 24.0% 16.0% 56.0% Parks visited For each park you visited, how often did you visit? Park Locations in past 12 Almost Once or Once or twice Less than months every day twice a week a month once a month Riverview Park &Trail S. 298 Riverside Avenue 46.4% 3.9% 17.0% 32.8% 46.3% Rives Park T. 926 Rives Street 6.5% 0.0% 8.8% 23.5% 67.6% Schenk’s Greenway U. 711 McIntire Road 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 15.4% 76.9% Starr Hill Park V. 7th Street NW & Elsom Street 3.1% 5.6% 0.0% 11.1% 83.3% Tonsler Park W. 500 Cherry Avenue 23.2% 3.4% 10.3% 23.1% 63.2% X. Washington Park/Pool 1001 Preston Avenue 28.3% 4.1% 10.8% 23.7% 61.2% Y. Warner Parkway Trail 15.3% 6.8% 17.6% 25.7% 50.0% 250 Bypass to Rio Road Parks visited For each park you visited, how often did you visit? Park Locations in past 12 Almost Once or Once or twice Less than months every day twice a week a month once a month AA. Greenstone on 5th Community Center 752 Blue Ridge Commons 2.4% 10.0% 0.0% 40.0% 50.0% BB. Friendship Court Community Center 3.1% 6.7% 6.7% 20.0% 66.7% 418 Garret Street CC. South First Street Community Center 2.0% 11.1% 0.0% 33.3% 55.6% 1001 S. First Street DD. Westhaven Community Center 3.1% 7.7% 7.7% 15.4% 69.2% 801 Hardy Drive EE. Smith Aquatics & Fitness Center 21.6% 5.7% 18.1% 12.4% 63.8% 1000-A Cherry Avenue FF. Crow Recreation Center 3.3% 12.5% 6.3% 6.3% 75.0% 1700 Rose Hill Drive GG. Key Recreation Center 6.1% 0.0% 10.0% 13.3% 76.7% 800 Market Street HH. Washington Park Recreation Center 9.4% 4.3% 8.7% 13.0% 73.9% 1001 Preston Avenue Carver Recreation Center II. 233 4th Street NW 25.3% 0.8% 14.4% 28.8% 56.0% Meadowcreek Gardens JJ. Behind Old English Inn 6.7% 0.0% 5.9% 14.7% 79.4% A4. Agree/disagree with actions needed from the Parks and Recreation Department Strongly Strongly I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 62.8% 32.7% 3.9% 0.2% 0.4% Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and B. 46.9% 36.5% 13.5% 1.7% 1.3% strengthen our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 76.3% 18.3% 3.9% 0.9% 0.7% D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 47.7% 33.7% 15.3% 2.6% 0.7% E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 34.0% 35.9% 23.4% 5.2% 1.5% F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 46.8% 36.8% 12.9% 2.4% 1.1% G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 31.6% 25.9% 32.7% 6.6% 3.1% H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 66.9% 25.8% 5.6% 0.6% 1.1% I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 50.8% 36.3% 10.7% 1.1% 1.1% J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 56.7% 32.0% 8.9% 1.5% 0.9% Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise K. be unable to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with 68.0% 24.2% 6.9% 0.2% 0.6% disabilities) A5_1. Three actions from A4 that are most important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the respondent and his/her family as frequencies Most I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… important Second Third Total most most A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 116 68 68 252 Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and B. 27 49 54 130 strengthen our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 132 89 60 281 D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 8 45 25 78 E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 5 16 25 46 F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 15 41 45 101 G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 0 4 10 14 H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 62 53 37 152 I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 17 19 28 64 J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 18 22 29 69 Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise be K. unable to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with 44 32 49 125 disabilities) Missing 47 53 61 161 Total 491 491 491 1473 A5_2. Three actions from A4 that are most important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the respondent and his/her family as percentages Most I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… important Second Third most most A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 23.6% 13.8% 13.8% Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and strengthen B. 5.5% 10.0% 11.0% our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 26.9% 18.1% 12.2% D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 1.6% 9.2% 5.1% E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 1.0% 3.3% 5.1% F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 3.1% 8.4% 9.2% G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 0.0% 0.8% 2.0% H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 12.6% 10.8% 7.5% I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 3.5% 3.9% 5.7% J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 3.7% 4.5% 5.9% Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise be unable K. 9.0% 6.5% 10.0% to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with disabilities) Missing 9.6% 10.8% 12.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% A5_3. No actions from A4 are important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the respondent and his/her family None Important Frequency Percent of Total None Important 45 9.2% Total 491 A6_1. Three actions from A4 that are most important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the future of Charlottesville as frequencies I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… Most important Second Third Total most most A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 66 38 53 157 Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and B. 47 47 48 142 strengthen our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 139 84 44 267 D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 18 61 32 111 E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 17 24 25 66 F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 12 28 35 75 G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 12 16 39 67 H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 41 52 34 127 I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 5 14 15 34 J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 9 13 28 50 Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise be K. unable to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with 76 63 80 219 disabilities) Missing 49 51 58 158 Total 491 491 491 1473 A6_2. Three actions from A4 that are most important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the future of Charlottesville as percentages I think it is important for the Parks & Recreation Department to… Most important Second Third most most A. Provide opportunities to improve physical health and fitness 13.4% 7.7% 10.8% Provide opportunities for people to make social connections and B. 9.6% 9.6% 9.8% strengthen our sense of community C. Preserve open space and the environment 28.3% 17.1% 9.0% D. Conserve and educate people about natural resources 3.7% 12.4% 6.5% E. Conserve and educate people about historic sites 3.5% 4.9% 5.1% F. Improve mental health and reduce stress 2.4% 5.7% 7.1% G. Contribute to the economic vitality of the community 2.4% 3.3% 7.9% H. Provide recreational facilities/programs for children and teens 8.4% 10.6% 6.9% I. Provide recreational facilities/programs for adults (18-49 years old) 1.0% 2.9% 3.1% J. Provide recreational facilities/programs for older adults (50+) 1.8% 2.6% 5.7% Provide recreational opportunities for people who might otherwise be K. 15.5% 12.8% 16.3% unable to participate (i.e., lower income households, people with disabilities) Missing 10.0% 10.4% 11.8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% A6_3. No actions from A4 are important for the Parks and Recreation Department to do for the future of Charlottesville None Important Frequency Percent of Total None Important 45 9.2% Total 491 A7. A need for different parks or facilities in Charlottesville For each one you have a need For each one you have a need for, how many times did you for, how well are your needs Need for use this type of park or facility being met? (Circle ONE this type of in Charlottesville in the past 12 Type of Park or Facility in Response) park or months? Charlottesville facility in Less Cville Almost Once or Once or Fully Mostly Partly Not than every twice a twice a Met Met Met Met once a day week month month A. Small neighborhood 70.3% 42.4% 27.1% 20.7% 9.8% 17.2% 30.1% 29.1% 23.5% parks you can walk to B. Multi-use parks near 43.2% 39.3% 31.3% 18.7% 10.7% 10.6% 33.0% 31.3% 25.1% your home C. Parks along streams 61.3% 39.0% 35.6% 18.5% 6.8% 8.6% 22.3% 34.2% 34.9% or the Rivanna River D. Playgrounds 31.8% 49.0% 33.1% 10.8% 7.0% 17.4% 34.0% 29.9% 18.8% E. Open play areas 28.5% 42.1% 29.0% 22.1% 6.9% 12.0% 23.2% 36.0% 28.8% F. Picnic shelters/areas 32.8% 41.4% 31.2% 17.2% 10.2% 3.7% 3.7% 27.4% 65.2% G. Off-leash dog parks 24.2% 21.3% 22.1% 38.5% 18.0% 14.4% 20.2% 19.2% 46.2% H. Open Space areas 39.7% 27.5% 31.2% 31.2% 10.1% 11.4% 16.3% 37.3% 34.9% Community garden 16.8% 11.2% 26.2% 45.8% 4.1% 16.2% 20.3% 59.5% I. 22.0% plots J. Paved trails 51.9% 24.9% 34.8% 27.7% 12.6% 8.5% 28.7% 34.5% 28.3% K. Unpaved paths 47.3% 27.1% 35.6% 24.9% 12.4% 8.3% 27.2% 35.9% 28.6% Hard surface trails 8.7% 22.0% 31.5% 37.8% 21.2% 20.2% 22.1% 36.5% L. 26.1% used for commuting A8_1. Three parks or facilities from A7 that are most important to the respondent’s household as frequencies Type of Park or Facility in Charlottesville Most important Second most important Third most important Total A. Small neighborhood parks you can walk to 158 44 49 251 B. Multi-use parks near your home 27 33 27 87 C. Parks along streams or the Rivanna River 48 56 54 158 D. Playgrounds 30 32 25 87 E. Open play areas 2 14 13 29 F. Picnic shelters/areas 3 21 20 44 G. Off-leash dog parks 22 35 25 82 H. Open Space areas 11 25 24 60 I. Community garden plots 8 12 9 29 J. Paved trails 32 41 46 119 K. Unpaved paths 25 31 43 99 L. Hard surface trails used for commuting 21 22 21 64 Missing 104 125 135 364 Total 491 491 491 1473 A8_2. Three parks or facilities from A7 that are most important to the respondent’s household as percentages Type of Park or Facility in Charlottesville Most important Second most important Third most important A. Small neighborhood parks you can walk to 32.2% 9.0% 10.0% B. Multi-use parks near your home 5.5% 6.7% 5.5% C. Parks along streams or the Rivanna River 9.8% 11.4% 11.0% D. Playgrounds 6.1% 6.5% 5.1% E. Open play areas 0.4% 2.9% 2.6% F. Picnic shelters/areas 0.6 % 4.3% 4.1% G. Off-leash dog parks 4.5% 7.1% 5.1% H. Open Space areas 2.2% 5.1% 4.9% I. Community garden plots 1.6% 2.4% 1.8% J. Paved trails 6.5% 8.4% 9.4% K. Unpaved paths 5.1% 6.3% 8.8% L. Hard surface trails used for commuting 4.3% 4.5% 4.3% Missing 21.2% 25.5% 27.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% A8_3. No parks or facilities from A7 are important to the respondent’s household None Important Frequency Percent of Total None Important 104 21.2% Total 491 A9. A need for different indoor and outdoor facilities. For each one you have a need for, For each one you have a need how many times did you use this for, how well are your needs type of facility in the past 12 Need for being met? months? Type of Park or Facility this type of facility Once or Once or Less than Fully Mostly Partly Almost Not Met twice a twice a once a Met Met Met every day week month month Outdoor Facilities A. Adult Baseball 4.3% 41.7% 25.0% 16.7% 16.7% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% B. Little League Baseball 5.5% 50.0% 27.3% 18.2% 4.5% 8.3% 29.2% 33.3% 29.2% C. Adult and Girls Softball fields 5.3% 33.3% 51.9% 11.1% 3.7% 3.6% 46.4% 25.0% 25.0% Soccer/football/lacrosse/field D. 18.3% 25.0% 35.2% 34.1% 5.7% 3.8% 30.4% 38.0% 27.8% hockey/rugby fields E. Outdoor Pickle Ball courts 4.1% 5.6% 5.6% 44.4% 44.4% 0.0% 22.2% 27.8% 50.0% F. Outdoor tennis courts 20.4% 34.3% 27.3% 29.3% 9.1% 1.1% 13.3% 34.4% 51.1% G. Basketball/multi-use courts 14.9% 31.1% 33.8% 33.8% 1.4% 7.9% 17.5% 42.9% 31.7% H. Golf courses 7.9% 38.5% 30.8% 17.9% 12.8% 5.7% 14.3% 20.0% 60.0% I. Skate Park 7.3% 18.9% 18.9% 24.3% 37.8% 9.7% 0.0% 35.5% 54.8% J. Water parks & spray-grounds 27.9% 54.5% 32.8% 8.2% 4.5% 7.2% 22.4% 36.8% 33.6% K. Batting Cages 5.5% 7.1% 7.1% 14.3% 71.4% 4.5% 13.6% 18.2% 63.6% L. Miniature Golf 13.6% 9.2% 4.6% 15.4% 70.8% 0.0% 2.0% 14.0% 84.0% Indoor Facilities M. Gyms (basketball, volleyball, etc.) 26.3% 30.4% 36.5% 25.2% 7.8% 9.9% 25.7% 19.8% 44.6% N. Indoor swimming pools 41.1% 39.0% 31.9% 19.2% 9.9% 7.9% 18.3% 23.2% 50.6% O. Exercise & fitness facilities 42.2% 35.7% 29.7% 20.9% 13.7% 15.2% 35.4% 13.4% 36.0% P. Indoor rock climbing walls 17.3% 6.6% 3.9% 19.7% 69.7% 2.9% 10.3% 11.8% 75.0% Q. Indoor fields 4.3% 4.3% 8.7% 13.0% 73.9% 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 80.0% R. Indoor Pickle Ball courts 3.1% 7.1% 21.4% 35.7% 35.7% 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% S. Indoor tennis courts 8.4% 10.3% 5.1% 15.4% 69.2% 3.3% 10.0% 30.0% 56.7% T. Gymnastics 6.5% 35.5% 35.5% 16.1% 12.9% 6.7% 26.7% 26.7% 30.0% U. Community Center 18.3% 29.5% 24.4% 24.4% 21.8% 3.0% 10.4% 31.3% 55.2% A10_1. Three outdoor or indoor facilities from A9 that are most important to the respondent’s household as frequencies Type of Park or Facility in Charlottesville Most important Second most important Third most important Total Outdoor Facilities A. Adult Baseball 3 2 0 5 B. Little League Baseball 6 3 2 11 C. Adult and Girls Softball fields 7 4 3 14 D. Soccer/football/lacrosse/field hockey/rugby 23 17 7 47 fi ld E. Outdoor Pickle Ball courts 2 2 2 6 F. Outdoor tennis courts 18 15 9 42 G. Basketball/multi-use courts 16 9 10 35 H. Golf courses 8 5 3 16 I. Skate Park 6 4 2 12 J. Water parks & spray-grounds 45 24 19 88 K. Batting Cages 3 5 3 11 L. Miniature Golf 5 7 7 19 Indoor Facilities M. Gyms (basketball, volleyball, etc.) 19 16 20 55 N. Indoor swimming pools 40 41 28 109 O. Exercise & fitness facilities 57 43 26 126 P. Indoor rock climbing walls 7 13 16 36 Q. Indoor fields 0 5 2 7 R. Indoor Pickle Ball courts 1 1 1 3 S. Indoor tennis courts 8 12 4 24 T. Gymnastics 2 5 6 13 U. Community Center 13 13 18 44 Missing 170 206 249 625 Total 491 491 491 1348 A10_2. Three outdoor or indoor facilities from A9 that are most important to the respondent’s household as percentages Type of Park or Facility in Charlottesville Most important Second most important Third most important Outdoor Facilities A. Adult Baseball 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% B. Little League Baseball 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% C. Adult and Girls Softball fields 1.4% 0.8% 0.6% Soccer/football/lacrosse/field hockey/rugby 4.7% 3.5% 1.4% D. fields E. Outdoor Pickle Ball courts 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% F. Outdoor tennis courts 3.7% 3.1% 1.8% G. Basketball/multi-use courts 3.3% 1.8% 2.0% H. Golf courses 1.6% 1.0% 0.6% I. Skate Park 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% J. Water parks & spray-grounds 9.2% 4.9% 3.9% K. Batting Cages 0.6% 1.0% 0.6% L. Miniature Golf 1.05% 1.4% 1.4% Indoor Facilities 4.1 M. Gyms (basketball, volleyball, etc.) 3.9% 3.3% 4.1% N. Indoor swimming pools 8.1% 8.4% 5.7% O. Exercise & fitness facilities 11.6% 8.8% 5.3% P. Indoor rock climbing walls 1.4% 2.6% 3.3% Q. Indoor fields 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% R. Indoor Pickle Ball courts 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% S. Indoor tennis courts 1.6% 2.0% 0.8% T. Gymnastics 0.4% 1.0% 1.2% U. Community Center 2.6% 2.6% 3.7% Missing 34.6% 42.0% 50.7% Total 491 491 491 A10_3. No outdoor or indoor facilities from A9 are important to the respondent’s household None Important Frequency Percent of Total None Important 170 34.6% Total 491 A11. The need for different programs, how well the need is being met, and use of need in the past 12 months. If you have this need: How If you have this need:, Need for this well are your needs being Check box if you have Type of Program or Activity program or met? used this program or activity activity during the past 12 Fully Mostly Partly Not months Met Met Met Met A. Summer/Holiday day camps 15.1% 18.8% 25.0% 35.9% 20.3% 5.3% B. Community Special events, concerts 44.6% 24.5% 35.8% 31.4% 8.3% 27.1% C. Volunteering 24.2% 20.8% 21.7% 37.7% 19.8% 9.0% D. Programs that families participate in 18.3% 18.2% 22.1% 40.3% 19.5% 7.1% E. Programs for people with disabilities 5.9% 23.1% 11.5% 26.9% 38.5% 1.2% F. Swim lessons 20.0% 30.6% 20.0% 25.9% 23.5% 7.1% G. Competitive swimming 5.7% 28.6% 17.9% 14.3% 39.3% 1.6% H. Adult exercise/fitness 39.9% 22.7% 34.3% 30.2% 12.8% 16.5% I. Early Childhood Programming 9.2% 17.9% 25.6% 35.9% 20.5% 2.4% J. Youth art, dance, music, performing arts 16.1% 22.4% 20.9% 34.3% 22.4% 6.1% K. Jogging/Running leagues and competitions 12.2% 13.6% 28.8% 28.8% 28.8% 5.5% L. Nature/environmental programs, camps 21.2% 9.2% 13.8% 43.7% 33.3% 4.1% M. Pickle ball lessons, leagues, competition 3.9% 10.5% 10.5% 31.6% 47.4% 0.8% N. Science/technology programs 12.2% 9.8% 15.7% 27.5% 47.1% 2.4% O. Golf lessons, leagues 5.5% 11.1% 11.1% 40.7% 37.0% 1.2% P. Active Senior Programming 10.0% 7.1% 21.4% 31.0% 40.5% 2.0% Q. Skateboard lessons, competition 2.4% 18.2% 0.0% 18.2% 63.6% 0.6% R. Adult art, dance, music, performing arts 23.2% 15.0% 21.5% 33.6% 29.9% 6.3% S. Tennis lessons, leagues, tournaments 9.2% 12.8% 10.3% 53.8% 23.1% 2.4% T. Gymnastics & Tumbling 7.3% 47.2% 25.0% 16.7% 11.1% 4.1% Outdoor Adventure Programs (kayaking, U. 4.1% 13.0% 29.3% 53.7% backpacking, rappelling, climbing, travel) 27.7% 5.7% V. Drop-in Child Care 9.2% 5.3% 7.9% 18.4% 68.4% 1.2% W. Youth Sports Programs 9.8% 21.4% 35.7% 19.0% 23.8% 3.3% Open Gym Drop-in Play (Pickup basketball, X. 17.1% 22.0% 34.1% 26.8% volleyball, etc.) 9.6% 3.7% Y. Adult sports programs (leagues, competition) 16.7% 16.0% 25.9% 33.3% 24.7% 6.5% A13. Extent of support for improvements to the Parks and Recreation system Very Somewhat Not How supportive are you of having the City… Not Sure Supportive Supportive Supportive Purchase land to preserve open space and A. 72.4% 17.8% 3.6% 6.2% natural areas Upgrade/renovate existing park buildings and B. 52.4% 37.1% 3.8% 6.7% facilities C. Restore/maintain natural areas 80.3% 15.2% 2.8% 1.7% D. Purchase land for developing athletic fields 17.4% 40.9% 24.0% 17.7% Expand/renovate walking/biking trails E. 72.5% 18.5% 3.4% 5.6% and connect existing trails Develop smaller parks with a greater variety of F. 46.1% 32.5% 7.6% 13.8% recreational facilities that serve a wider area G. Expand/renovate program and class spaces 29.3% 37.7% 11.7% 21.4% H. Purchase land for passive recreational uses 48.4% 33.1% 6.9% 11.6% (such as trails, picnic areas, and shelters) Upgrade/renovate athletic fields, including I. 25.8% 41.4% 15.8% 17.0% lighting J. Develop new athletic fields 14.6% 34.4% 29.7% 21.3% K. Purchase historic sites for preservation 34.3% 30.8% 19.0% 15.8% Upgrade/renovate aquatic facilities at existing L. 34.3% 39.6% 10.3% 15.8% recreation centers M. Ensure there are parks in all parts of the City 74.1% 17.7% 3.1% 5.1% N. Restore/maintain historic areas 40.3% 35.0% 11.3% 12.5% Upgrade/renovate fitness facilities at existing O. 37.7% 42.2% 6.9% 13.2% recreation centers P. Purchase land for recreational facilities 22.9% 35.6% 21.6% 19.8% Develop large parks with a greater variety of Q. 34.1% 35.6% 14.6% 15.7% recreational facilities that serve a wider area R. Upgrade/renovate existing golf facilities 10.2% 19.1% 53.6% 17.1% A13. Extent of support for improvements to the Parks and Recreation system - Frequencies How supportive are you of having the City… Very Somewhat Not Not Supportive Supportive Supportive Sure Purchase land to preserve open space and 305 75 15 A. 26 natural areas Upgrade/renovate existing park buildings and 219 155 16 B. 28 facilities C. Restore/maintain natural areas 339 64 12 7 D. Purchase land for developing athletic fields 67 157 92 68 Expand/renovate walking/biking trails 298 76 14 E. 23 and connect existing trails Develop smaller parks with a greater variety of 187 132 31 F. 56 recreational facilities that serve a wider area G. Expand/renovate program and class spaces 115 148 46 84 Purchase land for passive recreational uses 196 134 28 H. 47 (such as trails, picnic areas, and shelters) Upgrade/renovate athletic fields, including 103 165 63 I. 68 lighting J. Develop new athletic fields 57 134 116 83 K. Purchase historic sites for preservation 137 123 76 63 Upgrade/renovate aquatic facilities at existing 137 158 41 L. 63 recreation centers M. Ensure there are parks in all parts of the City 306 73 13 21 N. Restore/maintain historic areas 162 142 48 50 Upgrade/renovate fitness facilities at existing 152 170 28 O. 53 recreation centers P. Purchase land for recreational facilities 90 140 85 78 Develop large parks with a greater variety of 135 141 58 Q. 62 recreational facilities that serve a wider area R. Upgrade/renovate existing golf facilities 40 75 210 67 Missing Total 491 491 491 1348 A14_2. Three items from A13 respondents would be most willing to fund with their City Tax dollars as percentages How supportive are you of having the City… Most Second most Third most important important important Purchase land to preserve open space and natural A. 24.4% 8.8% 6.5% areas Upgrade/renovate existing park buildings and facilities B. 7.9% 4.9% 3.3% C. Restore/maintain natural areas 6.5% 16.5% 11.6% D. Purchase land for developing athletic fields 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% Expand/renovate walking/biking trails and E. 18.9% 13.6% 8.1% connect existing trails Develop smaller parks with a greater variety of F. 3.7% 7.3% 5.3% recreational facilities that serve a wider area G. Expand/renovate program and class spaces 1.2% 1.6% 2.4% Purchase land for passive recreational uses (such as H. 1.8% 5.7% 6.3% trails, picnic areas, and shelters) Upgrade/renovate athletic fields, including lighting I. 2.2% 1.4% 2.9% J. Develop new athletic fields 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% K. Purchase historic sites for preservation 1.4% 2.6% 3.3% Upgrade/renovate aquatic facilities at existing L. 2.6% 3.7% 3.3% recreation centers M. Ensure there are parks in all parts of the City 7.5% 8.4% 11.4% N. Restore/maintain historic areas 1.4% 1.8% 2.9% Upgrade/renovate fitness facilities at existing O. 2.0% 3.7% 3.1% recreation centers P. Purchase land for recreational facilities 0.2% 0.2% 1.2% Develop large parks with a greater variety of Q. 1.8% 0.6% 4.7% recreational facilities that serve a wider area R. Upgrade/renovate existing golf facilities 0.6% 0.6% 1.4% Missing 14.7% 16.7% 19.6% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% A14_3. Would not be willing to fund any items from A13 with their City tax dollars Not Willing to Fund Frequency Percent of Total Not Willing to Fund 71 14.5% Total 491 B1. Need for the different Farmers Markets For each one you have a need If Yes, how well are your for, how many times did you Need for needs being met? use this type of farmers market this in the past 12 months? Type of Farmers Market Farmers Less Almost Once or Once or Market Fully Mostly Partly Not than every twice a twice a Met Met Met Met once a day week month month A. City Market (April thru 71.3% 53.2% 34.1% 10.4% 2.3% 0.9% 25.1% 43.7% 30.3% Thanksgiving) B. Farmers in the Park (May 49.9% 45.6% 35.0% 15.2% 4.2% 0.8% 23.0% 35.1% 41.0% thru September) C. Holiday Market 46.0% 46.5% 31.8% 12.9% 8.8% 0.9% 19.4% 29.6% 50.0% (Thanksgiving to Christmas) C1. Satisfaction with the Charlottesville Park System Overall Satisfaction Rating Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 1 (Poor) 2 0.5% 0.5% 2 1 0.2% 0.7% 3 5 1.1% 1.8% 4 6 1.4% 3.2% 5 25 5.7% 8.9% 5.5 (Neutral) 1 0.2% 9.1% 6 52 11.8% 20.9% 7 93 21.1% 42.0% 8 153 34.8% 76.8% 9 77 17.5% 94.3% 10 (Excellent) 25 5.7% 100.0% Missing 51 Total 491 C4. Ways in which respondents learn about Charlottesville Parks & Recreation programs and services Ways to learn about programs and Services Number of Respondents News Media (TV, radio, newspaper) 193 Social Media 126 Social Fliers 57 Email Communications 66 Program Guide 177 Website 199 Visited/Called a Parks & Recreation Office 79 Charlottesville Parks & Recreation App 13 Word of Mouth 255 Other 39 Don’t know/don’t recall 65 D1. Age of Respondents Age Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 18-24 38 8% 8.0% 25-39 166 34.8% 42.8% 40-64 177 37.1% 79.9% 65+ 96 20.7% 100.0% Total 477 100.0% Missing 14 Total + Missing 491 D2. Years Lived in Charlottesville Years Lived in Charlottesville Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Less than 1 Year 4 0.8% 0.8% 1 to less than 2 Years 45 9.4% 10.2% 2 to less than 5 Years 92 19.2% 29.4% 5 to less than 7 Years 35 7.3% 36.7% 7 to less than 15 Years 89 18.6% 55.3% 15 to less than 30 Years 85 17.8% 73.1% 30 to less than 60 Years 99 20.7% 93.8% Over 60 Years 29 6.1% 100.0% Total 478 100.0% Missing 13 Total + Missing 491 D3. Asks if respondent is a college student in Charlottesville College Student Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Yes 47 9.9% 9.9% No 428 90.1% 100.0% Total 475 100.0% Missing 16 Total + Missing 491 D5. Type of Home Type of Home Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Single Family House 306 63.4% 63.4% Townhouse/duplex 60 12.4% 75.8% Apartment 102 21.1% 96.9% Condominium 10 2.1% 99.0% Other 5 1.0% 100.0% Total 483 100.0% Missing 8 Total + Missing 491 D8. Pre-Tax Household Income in the 2016 Calendar Year Income Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Under $25,000 69 16.6% 16.6% $25,000 - $49,999 95 22.9% 39.5% $50,000 - $74,999 78 18.8% 58.3% $75,000 - $99,999 60 14.5% 72.8% $100,000 - $149,999 60 14.5% 87.2% $150,000 or more 53 12.8% 100.0% Total 415 100.0% Missing 76 Total + Missing 491