CITY COUNCIL AGENDA J. Lloyd Snook, III, Mayor August 1, 2022 Juandiego Wade, Vice Mayor Sena Magill, Councilor Michael K. Payne, Councilor Brian R. Pinkston, Councilor Kyna Thomas, Clerk 4:00 PM OPENING SESSION Register at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. This portion of the meeting is held electronically in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted March 7, 2022, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during a declared State of Emergency. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48-hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. Call to Order/Roll Call Agenda Approval Reports 1. Presentation: FY2024 City Budget overview 5:30 PM CLOSED SESSION as provided by Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2-3712 of the Virginia Code (TBD) 6:30 PM BUSINESS SESSION This portion of the meeting will accommodate a limited number of in-person public participants in City Council Chamber at City Hall as we employ a hybrid approach to public meetings during the locally declared state of emergency. Registration is available for a lottery-based seating selection at www.charlottesville.gov/1543/Reserve-a-Seat-for-City- Council-Meeting. Reservation requests may also be made by contacting the Clerk of Council office at clerk@charlottesville.gov or 434-970-3113. Moment of Silence Announcements Recognitions/Proclamations Consent Agenda* 2. Minutes: June 21 special meeting; July 18 special meeting 3. Resolution: Authorizing a refund of $8,132.19 to a taxpaying entity or business, for business license tax paid in error for 2022 (2nd reading) 4. Resolution: Approving Settlement of Disputed Real Estate Assessment (Omni Hotel) (2nd reading) 5. Resolution: COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program-Community Development Block Grant Amendment - $250,816 (2nd reading) 6. Resolution: Appropriating Funds for the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program - $250,000 (2nd reading) 7. Resolution: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for $4,748 (2nd reading) 8. Resolution: Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 E. High Street (1 reading) City Manager Report • Report: City Manager Report Page 1 of 125 Community Matters Public comment for up to 16 speakers (limit 3 minutes per speaker). Preregistration available for first 8 spaces; speakers announced by Noon on meeting day (9:00 a.m. sign-up deadline). Additional public comment at end of meeting. Public comment will be conducted through electronic participation while City Hall is closed to the public. Participants can register in advance at www.charlottesville.gov/zoom. Action Items 9. Public Plastic Bag Tax (2nd reading and Public Hearing) Hearing/Ord.: 10. Public American Rescue Plan Fund Allocations (1 of 2 readings) Hearing/Res.: 11. Ordinance: 415 10th Street NW, Rezoning from R-1S to B-2 (1 of 2 readings) 12. Ordinance: 415 and 415-B 10th Street NW - Designation of Property as an Individually Protected Property (1 of 2 readings) 13. Resolution: Resolution of Support for four (4) TJPDC / MPO Grant Applications (1 reading) General Business 14. Report: Sister Cities Commission Annual Report (written report only) Other Business Community Matters (2) Adjournment Page 2 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Preliminary discussion Required: Presenter: Krisy Hammill, Director of Budget Staff Krisy Hammill, Director of Budget Contacts: Michael Rogers, City Manager Title: FY2024 City Budget overview Background Annual City Budget development Discussion This is a presentation to begin discussion about the Fiscal Year 2024 City Budget. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan The budget touches on all components of the City's Vision. Community Engagement The budget development process affords many opportunities for community engagement. Budgetary Impact TBD Recommendation The formal recommendation will be made with the City Manager's Budget presentation to City Council, which generally occurs during the first City Council meeting in March. Alternatives Council and staff will discuss alternatives during the budget development process. Attachments None Page 3 of 125 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING June 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. Virtual/electronic meeting via Zoom The Charlottesville City Council met electronically on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted on March 7, 2022, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during the coronavirus State of Emergency. The special meeting was called in order to hold a closed meeting on matters involving city boards and commissions as well as legal consultation. Mayor Lloyd Snook called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. and Deputy Clerk of Council Maxicelia Robinson called the roll, noting all members present: Mayor Lloyd Snook, Vice Mayor Juandiego Wade, and Councilors Sena Magill, Michael Payne and Brian Pinkston. On motion by Wade, seconded by Pinkston, Council voted 5-0 (Ayes: Magill, Payne, Pinkston, Snook, Wade; Noes: none) to convene in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2- 3712, specifically: • Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) and (A)(8), for consideration of appointments by City Council to the City’s planning commission and other boards and commissions; legal consultation regarding compliance with requirements of Va. Code 15.2-2212 and related ordinances and resolutions; and to discuss various pending litigation matters. On motion by Wade, seconded by Pinkston, Council certified by the following vote: 5-0 (Ayes: Magill, Payne, Pinkston, Snook, Wade; Noes: none), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 4 of 125 CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING July 18, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Virtual/electronic meeting via Zoom The Charlottesville City Council met electronically on Monday, July 18, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. in accordance with a local ordinance amended and re-enacted on March 7, 2022, to ensure continuity of government and prevent the spread of disease during the coronavirus State of Emergency. The special meeting was called in order to hold a closed meeting on matters involving city boards and commissions as well as legal consultation. Mayor Lloyd Snook called the meeting to order and Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas called the roll, noting the following members present: Mayor Lloyd Snook and Councilors Sena Magill, Michael Payne and Brian Pinkston. Vice Mayor Juandiego Wade gave prior notice of his absence due to an overseas mission trip. On motion by Magill, seconded by Payne, Council voted 4-0 (Ayes: Magill, Payne, Pinkston, Snook; Noes: none; Absent: Wade) to convene in closed session as authorized by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711 and 2.2- 3712, specifically: • Section 2.2-3711(A)(1) and (A)(8), for consideration of future appointments by Council to the City’s planning commission and other boards and commissions, and legal consultation regarding compliance with requirements of Va. Code 15.2-2212 and City council ordinances and resolutions. On motion by Magill, seconded by Payne, Council certified by the following vote: 4-0 (Ayes: Magill, Payne, Pinkston, Snook; Noes: none; Absent: Wade), that to the best of each Council member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the Motion convening the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. BY Order of City Council BY Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Page 5 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval of Refund of Business License Tax Payment Presenter: Todd Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Staff Contacts: Todd Divers, Commissioner of the Revenue Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Jason Vandever, City Treasurer Title: Authorizing a refund of $8,132.19 to a taxpaying entity or business, for business license tax paid in error for 2022 (2nd reading) Background Ownership of a Charlottesville City business changed in August of 2021. In addition to filing for a renewal of their business license for 2022 under the new entity, they mistakenly submitted and paid for a renewal under the old entity. We subsequently discovered that the old entity had ceased operations and therefore did not need a 2022 business license. We, therefore, are obliged to refund the tax collected in error. The City is required to refund business license taxes paid in error with interest per Code of Virginia §58.1-3703.1 (A) (2) (e). The amount paid for the 2022 business license was $7,891.76. In addition, Code of Virginia §58.1-3703.1(A)(2)(e) states: “Interest shall be paid on the refund of any BPOL tax from the date of payment or due date, whichever is later, whether attributable to an amended return or other reason. Interest on any refund shall be paid at the same rate charged under §58.1- 3916.” The interest amount is $240.43. Discussion City Code requires Council approval for any tax refunds resulting from an erroneous assessment in excess of $2,500 . Payment of interest is also required in accordance with Section 14-12(g) of the Charlottesville City Code. Per City Code Sec. 30-6(b), the Commissioner of the Revenue has provided to the City Attorney information necessary to enable her to consent to the determination of the Commissioner of the Revenue that the tax paid by the taxpayer was erroneous and should therefore be refunded. The refund has therefore been approved for presentment to Council by the City Attorney, Commissioner of the Revenue, and City Treasurer. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan n/a Page 6 of 125 Community Engagement n/a Budgetary Impact The refund will reduce current year Business License Tax revenue (GL 410150) by $8,132.19. If revenues in GL 410150 are not sufficient to cover such refund, funds shall be drawn from the Citywide reserve (GL 1631001000). Recommendation Approval of the tax refund. Suggested Motion: “I move the RESOLUTION authorizing a refund of $8,132.19 to a taxpaying entity or business, for business license taxes paid in error for 2022” Alternatives n/a Attachments 1. Refund Calculation 2. Resolution Page 7 of 125 Refund Interest Calculation Payment Paid Date Refund Date Days Rate Payment Amount Annualized Interest Tax Refund Interest Refund 2022 BL 3/1/2022 7/18/2022 139 8% $ 7,891.76 $ 631.34 $ 7,891.76 $ 240.43 Total $ 8,132.19 Page 8 of 125 Suggested Motion: “I move the RESOLUTION authorizing a refund of $8,132.19 to a taxpaying entity or business, for business license taxes paid in error for 2022” RESOLUTION Authorizing a refund of $8,132.19 to a taxpaying entity or business, for business license taxes paid in error for 2022 WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue has determined that a taxpaying entity or business paid 2022 Business License Tax to the City of Charlottesville in error; and WHEREAS, that taxpaying entity or business has requested a refund of the amount paid in error; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Revenue has certified that a refund of taxes paid is due in the amount of $8,132.19; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 30-6(b) requires City Council approval for any tax refund exceeding $2,500.00; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Treasurer to issue a refund of $8,132.19 from GL 410150 (business license tax revenue) or from GL 1631001000 (Citywide reserve) as necessary, payable to that taxpaying entity or business. Page 9 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval of Resolution Presenter: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Title: Approving Settlement of Disputed Real Estate Assessment (Omni Hotel) (2nd reading) Background In March 2021 the Omni Charlottesville Virginia Corporation ("Omni") filed an action in the Charlottesville Circuit Court, challenging the City's real estate assessment for Tax Year 2020; subsequently, the lawsuit was amended to include a challenge to the City's real estate assessment for Tax Year 2021. The Omni currently has an appeal pending before the City's Board of Equalization (BOE) challenging its real estate assessment for Tax Year 2022. Discussion Over the course of the past year, attorneys for the Omni and for the City (the law firm of Gentry Locke) have engaged in mutual discussions regarding the challenged assessments. At this time the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement, which would not become effective unless approved by action of City Council. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan N/A Community Engagement N/A Budgetary Impact The fiscal impact of the proposed settlement to the City is a total of $150,099.19. Recommendation Approval. Suggested Motion: "I move the RESOLUTION approving the Settlement Agreement and Release between the Omni Charlottesville Virginia Corporation and the City of Charlottesville, made as of July 1, 2022." Page 10 of 125 Alternatives If the City Council elects not to approve the Settlement Agreement and Release, then City City and the Omni would proceed to trial in Charlottesville Circuit Court Case No. CL21-116 and within the Board of Equalization appeal of the Omni's assessment for Tax Year 2022. Attachments 1. RESOLUTION for Omni Settlement Agreement Page 11 of 125 RESOLUTION Approving a Settlement Agreement and Release between the Omni Charlottesville Virginia Corporation and the City of Charlottesville, made as of July 1, 2022 WHEREAS the Omni Charlottesville Virginia Corporation (“Omni”) and the City of Charlottesville (“City”) are parties to an action pending in the Circuit Court of the City of Charlottesville styled Omni Charlottesville Virginia Corporation v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia, Case No. CL21-116 (the “Action”), addressing the real estate tax assessments for the Omni property for tax years 2020 and 2021; and WHEREAS Omni currently has an appeal of the City’s assessment of the Omni property for tax year 2022 pending before the City’s Board of Equalization (the “BOE Appeal”); and WHEREAS Omni and the City wish to settle the disputes between them and dismiss the Action and the BOE Appeal on the terms and conditions stated below; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia THAT a Settlement Agreement and Release made between Omni and the City as of July 1, 2022 is hereby ratified and approved, upon the following terms and conditions: 1. Settlement Payment. In consideration of the release set forth in this Agreement, the City shall refund to Omni, and agrees to accept, a payment in the principal amount of $135,304.57, plus accrued interest in the amount of $14,794.62 as of June 20, 2022, with interest accruing thereafter at the rate of $37.07 per diem (collectively the “Settlement Payment”), as a refund of a portion of the real property taxes imposed on real property owned by Omni, known as 212 Ridge McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, bearing Parcel No. 330155L00 (the “Property”). The Settlement Payment amount includes the refunds of taxes and interest due to Omni based on the revised assessments set forth in Paragraph No. 3 of this Agreement. 2. Dismissal. Upon receipt of the Settlement Payment, counsel for Omni shall endorse and deliver to counsel for the City an Agreed Order dismissing the Actions, with prejudice. 3. Compromise Assessments for Tax Years 2020, 2021, and 2022. For purposes of this settlement, the City shall set the assessment of the Property for tax years 2020-2022 as follows: $40.0 million for tax year 2020, $30.0 million for tax year 2021, and $30.6 million for tax year 2022. Due to the compromise assessment for tax year 2022, the real estate tax installment due on the Property to the City no later than December 5, 2022, shall be $146,880.00. 4. No Admissions. The parties acknowledge that the City’s assessments of the Property for tax years 2020-2022 remain in dispute. Omni maintains that the City’s assessments are erroneous and significantly exceed the fair market value of the Property. The City maintains that its assessments are not erroneous and are at the fair market value of the Property. Accordingly, the parties agree that nothing in this Agreement or the performance hereof shall be taken as an admission or concession of any type or kind regarding or relating to the Property’s actual fair market value for tax years 2020-2022. Page 12 of 125 5. Mutual Releases. In consideration of the promises and rights granted in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, Omni discharges and releases the City and its officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and representatives, from all claims, debts, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs, executions, liabilities and all other obligations, whether in contract, tort, or other, known and unknown, both legal and equitable, which have been brought or could have been brought, relating to the subject matter of the Actions or related in any way to the City’s real property tax assessments of the Property for the tax years 2020, 2021, and/or 2022. In consideration of the promises and rights granted in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, the City discharges and releases Omni and its shareholders, officers, employees, agents, attorneys, and representatives, from all claims, debts, suits, actions, charges, demands, judgments, costs, executions, liabilities and all other obligations, whether in contract, tort, or other, known and unknown, both legal and equitable, which have been brought or could have been brought, relating to the subject matter of the Actions or related in any way to the City’s real property tax assessments for the Property for the tax years 2020, 2021, and/or 2022. 6. Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 7. Merger. No promise or agreement not herein expressed has been made by, between or among the parties, and in executing this Agreement, the parties are not relying upon any statement or oral representations made to them by each other or by anyone else who has not acted for them or on their own behalf but are each relying solely upon their own judgment. No consideration has been given, or is or has been offered, promised, expected, or held out other than as provided herein, and no conditions precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement exist other than as expressly provided herein. This Agreement creates no new rights other than as expressly provided herein. 8. Full and Final Settlement. The parties understand that this is a full and final disposition of the claims and disputes between them, both as to the existence, and the nature and extent of, liability by any party except as specified herein. The parties understand and agree fully that this Agreement constitutes a compromise settlement and is mutual, final, and binding upon the parties. 9. Compromised Claims. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement constitutes the settlement of disputed claims, that liability has been denied by all parties, and that this Agreement, the consideration therefor, and all negotiations relating thereto, are for settlement purposes only and shall not be construed as an admission of liability or responsibility for any wrongful act or omission at any time on the part of any party. Accordingly, the parties agree to this compromise in lieu of litigation and in consideration of the avoidance of litigation, its expenses, and the potential risk of loss, and for no other reason. The parties further agree that this Agreement shall not be admissible or usable in any future lawsuit or tax controversies between the parties relating to the City’s assessments of the Property for ad valorem tax purposes for tax year 2023 and/or any subsequent tax years. Page 13 of 125 10. Modifications. No modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all parties, with the approval of the Charlottesville City Council as may be required by Virginia law. 11. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of all parties, their successors, and permitted assigns, and each of them. 12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13. Authority. Each signor warrants that he/she has full legal authority to execute this Settlement Agreement on behalf of the parties. 14. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with Virginia law. In the event any litigation arises concerning enforcement of this Agreement, venue shall be a court of competent jurisdiction in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. This Agreement has been read by the parties hereto, and where appropriate, by the attorneys for all of the parties hereto, and the parties understand its content and are satisfied with its terms. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute a written Settlement Agreement and Release, upon the terms stated above within this Resolution, upon the approval of the City Attorney as to the form of such written Settlement Agreement and Release. Page 14 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Misty Graves, Director Staff Contacts: Misty Graves, Director Title: COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program-Community Development Block Grant Amendment - $250,816 (2nd reading) Background A C.O.V.I.D. Homelessness Emergency Response Program amended grant of $200,000 has been awarded to support non-congregate emergency shelter operations and administrative expenses from July 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. The Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless plans, designs and coordinates the local homelessness continuum of care and is the provider of record for data collection. Discussion The City of Charlottesville has staff from the departments of Human Services and Social Services taking leadership roles in the governance of T.J.A.C.H. This grant supports the additional costs associated with maintaining the required data associated with the C.O.V.I.D. global pandemic. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan This grant advances the City of Charlottesville’s Strategic Plan Goal #1 of an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents. Specifically, it will facilitate the objective of increasing affordable housing options. Community Engagement This grant and plan are the product of extensive engagement of the service provider community for persons experiencing homelessness. This partnership is reflective of the new governance model for T.J.A.C.H. and the priority requests of the Interfaith Movement Promoting Action by Congregations Together (IMPACT). Budgetary Impact This grant will be entirely Federal pass-through funds. No local match is required. There is no budget impact for the City of Charlottesville. All funds will be distributed to sub-recipients for service provision. Page 15 of 125 Recommendation Staff recommends approval and appropriation of grant funds. Alternatives Council may elect to not accept the funds and the community will not have the capacity to administer the following services to persons experiencing a housing crisis: Emergency low-barrier shelter, coordinated assessment, rapid rehousing, H.M.I.S., coalition coordination and administration. Attachments 1. Resolution_COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program-Community Development Block Grant Amendment ($250,816) Page 16 of 125 RESOLUTION Appropriating Supplemental Funding in the Amount of $250,816 to be received from Community Development Block Grant for the COVID Homelessness Emergency Response Program (C.H.E.R.P.) WHEREAS, The City of Charlottesville, through the Department of Human Services, has received the C.H.E.R.P. Grant from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development in the amount of $250,816. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $250,816 is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenues $250,816 Fund: 209 IO: 1900448 G/L: 430120 Federal Pass Thru Expenditures $250,816 Fund: 209 IO: 1900448 G/L: 530550 Contracted Services BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon receipt of $250,816 in funds from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 17 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Christopher Carr, Management Specialist II Staff Contacts: Christopher Carr, Management Specialist II Victor Garber, Deputy Director Title: Appropriating Funds for the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program - $250,000 (2nd reading) Background The City of Charlottesville, through the Parks and Recreation Department, has received approval for reimbursement of up to $250,000 from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program to provide free breakfast and lunch to children attending summer camp programs, and dinner to our community housing centers. Discussion Charlottesville Parks and Recreation will operate five Summer Camp programs and four community housing centers (Westhaven, Friendship Court, South First, and Greenstone) throughout the City of Charlottesville. These sites serve children in Pre K-9th grades, for eight weeks during the summer, June 22-August 12. Various activities are planned from 9:00am-4:00pm, Monday through Friday. This summer we will be sponsoring the Girls and Boys Club and the YMCA. The reimbursement will cover the costs of nutritious meals at these locations, which also have an educational/enrichment component. The Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program provides a free, nutritious breakfast and lunch for these children, and the community housing centers will provide a free, nutritious dinner. Most of the children served receive free or reduced meals during the school year. The Parks & Recreation Camp has almost 2,000 enrollees this summer. The $250,000 appropriation covers the cost of the food and administration of the summer food service program. The breakfast and lunches are purchased through the City of Charlottesville School Food Service and the dinners will be purchased through Pearl Island Foods, LLC. The Parks and Recreation Department pays the bills to the City of Charlottesville Food Service and Pearl Island Food, LLC, and is then reimbursed by the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Programs. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan Page 18 of 125 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 as there is no local match required. 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 1. SFSP Resolution Page 19 of 125 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program Summer Food Service Program $250,000 WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, through Parks and Recreation, has received approval for reimbursement up to $250,000 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 22, 2022 through October 31, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, which the sum of $250,000, received from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program, is hereby appropriated in the following manner: Revenue – $250,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900473 G/L Account: 430120 Expenditures - $250,000 Fund: 209 Internal Order: 1900473 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $250,000 from the Virginia Department of Education Special Nutrition Program. Page 20 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval and Appropriation Presenter: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Staff Contacts: Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager Gail Hassmer, Chief Accountant Title: State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for $4,748 (2nd reading) Background The City of Charlottesville has received the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Grant (SCAAP), on behalf of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, in the amount of $4,748. These are federal funds to reimburse the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail for Fiscal Year 2020 expenses of housing alien inmates. Albemarle County is appropriating funds received under the same program that will also be passed through to the Regional Jail. Discussion The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating certain undocumented criminal aliens. The award amount is based on the number of undocumented persons incarcerated at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. As this is not a one-time grant, the Jail will receive future payments from the City as they are granted. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan These funds align with Council’s Vision for a Smart, Citizen-Focused Government -- Acceptance of these funds will support quality services at our Regional Jail and will help ensure that services are provided in the most efficient and cost effective way to citizens. These funds also support Goal 2: Be a safe, equitable, thriving and beautiful community, and Objective 2.1. Provide an effective and equitable public safety system Community Engagement N/A Budgetary Impact Page 21 of 125 There is no budgetary impact as 78% of these funds will be passed through directly to the Regional Jail. The remaining 22% will be sent to Justice Benefits, Inc., which provides administrative support for the regional jail. Recommendation Staff recommends approval and appropriation of funds to the Regional Jail. Alternatives N/A Attachments 1. Resolution_$4,748 SCAAP Regional Jail appropriation Page 22 of 125 RESOLUTION Appropriating funds for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) Grant for 2020 reimbursement - $4,748 WHEREAS, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grant, providing federal payments for correctional officer salary costs incurred for incarcerating certain undocumented criminals has been awarded the City of Charlottesville, on behalf of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, in the amount of $4,748. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that a total of $3,703.44 be appropriated and passed through to the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail and $1,044.56 be appropriated and passed through to Justice Benefits, Inc. Revenues $4,748.00 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900474 G/L Account: 431110 Expenses $3,703.44 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900474 G/L Account: 530550 $1,044.56 Fund: 211 Internal Order: 1900474 G/L Account: 530670 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this appropriation is conditioned upon the receipt of $4,748 from the U. S. Bureau of Justice Assistance. Page 23 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Approval of Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 E. High Street Presenter: Jeffrey Werner, Historic Preservation and Design Planner Staff Contacts: Jeffrey Werner, Historic Preservation and Design Planner Title: Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 E. High Street (1 reading) Background Per Sec 34-1045, applicants for a development subject to Site Plan review and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay may request approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan (CSP). City Council may approve a CSP upon a determination there is good cause for deviating from the sign ordinance and the CSP will serve the public purposes and objectives at least as well, or better, than signage allowed by-right and, in evaluating a request, consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the ERB. On June 12, 2018, the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a three-story medical office building and a two-story rear parking deck at the parcel located at the NE corner of East High Street and 10th Street NE. In November 2020, the applicant requested approval of a CSP in order to allow three monument signs on the property—City Code allows one monument sign and limits the size. On July 12, 2022, the ERB and Planning Commission reviewed the CSP and recommended Council approve the plan with the inclusion of staff’s recommended conditions. Proposed Action: Approve the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street as presented, referenced, and expressed in the July 12, 2022 staff report to Planning Commission and Entrance Corridor Review Board and will incorporate the two conditions recommended by staff. Discussion This medical office facility is located on a corner lot with access to the rear parking structure from an entrance off East High Street and an entrance off 10th Street NE. The primary and largest monument sign is located at this corner and prominently identifies the facility. The two smaller monument signs provide direction at the two separate entrances to the parking structure. On July 12, 2022, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed the request at an advertised public hearing and, in approving the Consent Agenda, adopted the following motion: "Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I Page 24 of 125 move to find that the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street, satisfies the ERB’s criteria and is compatible with this Entrance Corridor and that the ERB recommends City Council approve this Comprehensive Signage Plan as submitted with the two conditions recommended by staff." Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan Approval of this CSP aligns with Council’s vision for Economic Sustainability : • The City has facilitated significant mixed and infill development within the City. Community Engagement As with other actions related to the project’s design review, abutting property owners were notified prior to the meeting. There were no public comments at the July 12, 2022 meeting. Budgetary Impact Approval of this CSP will have no budgetary impact. Recommendation The ERB and Planning Commission reviewed this item at the July 12, 2022 meeting and, by vote, recommended Council approve the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street as referenced in the July 12, 2022 staff report to the ERB and Planning Commission, including the conditions therein recommended by staff. Staff concurs with the recommendation above. Recommended Motion: "I move the RESOLUTION approving a Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street" Alternatives City Council may, by motion, approve the attached Resolution. By motion, Council may also deny approval of the Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan. (If Council denies approval of the Comprehensive Signage Plan, the Landowner may either revise and resubmit the CSP or proceed with all signage being subject to the generally applicable signage regulations set forth within Chapter 34 of the City Code, Article IX, Division 4 (Signs)). Attachments 1. 920 East High St - CSP - ERB staff report and attachments (Final June 29 2022) 2. Resolution - CC - CSP 920 East High Page 25 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT Entrance Corridor Review Board review of proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 E. High Street PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 12, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Zoning: Downtown North Corridor Entrance Corridor Overlay District: Section 34-307(a)(10) East High Street/9th Street from Long Street to East Market Street, Sub-area C Tax Parcels: 530273000. Site Acreage: 1.228 acres Current Usage: Multi--story, medical office building (under construction). Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation & Design Planner, and Read Brodhead, Zoning Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Section 34-309(a)(3). Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts (EC). Section 34-1045. Applicants for a development that is subject to Site Plan review and design review may request approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan (CSP). The ERB reviews such requests and makes a recommendation to City Council to either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the CSP. Council may approve a comprehensive signage plan, upon a determination there is good cause for deviating from the sign ordinance and the CSP will serve the public purposes and objectives at least as well, or better, than signage allowed by-right. Background On June 12, 2018, the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a three-story medical office building and a two-story rear parking deck. Application Request for approval of a Comprehensive Signage Plan for the medical office facility at 920 E. High Street. The requested CSP is necessary to permit the installation of three monument signs (N01, N05, and N06): • Three monument signs exceed the maximum one allowed. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 1 Page 26 of 125 • The area of each monument sign exceeds the maximum 24 square feet allowed per sign: o N01 will be 70.07 square feet. o N05 and N06 will each be 28 square feet. • The aggregate signage area [of the monument signs] of 126.07 square feet exceeds the maximum 75 square feet allowed. • Two of the monument signs (N05 and N06) will be 7’-0” in height, exceeding the maximum 6’-0” allowed. Note: The area of a monument sign is measured on one side only, regardless if there is signage on both sides. This medical office facility is located at a corner lot with access from both East High Street and 10th Street NE. The primary and largest monument sign (N01) is located at this corner and prominently identifies the facility. The two, smaller monument signs (N05 and N06)—one on East High and one on 10th Street—each provide direction at the two entrances to the facility’s parking structure. Information submitted (attached): Comprehensive Signage Plan for [Sentara] 920 E. High Street: • Sign Application and Permit forms for signs N01, N05, and N06 (3 sheets, signed by applicant only) • City GIS zoning map of parcel and immediate area (1 sheet), dated 11/21/2020 • Narrative (3 pages), dated June 17, 2022 • AGI drawings and renderings, dated 5/27/2020 revised 2/16/2022: o Cover sheet o Page 2: Rendering of locations for signs N01, N02, N03, N04, N05, and N06. o Page 3: Rendering for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 4: Details for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 5: Location for sign N01. (large monument) o Page 6: Location and details for signs N02. (building address*) o Page 7: Location and details for sign N03. (building address*) o Page 8: Location and details for sign N04. (building address*) o Page 9: Rendering and details for signs N05 and N06. (small monuments) o Page 10: Location for signs N05 and N06. (small monuments) o Page 11: Lighting cut sheet • Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan Amendment #3 o Sheet 3 – Site Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 7 – Landscaping Plan, Revised April 19, 2022 o Sheet 17 – Sign Details, revised April 19, 2022 Note: Location of signs N01, N05 and N06 will be located as shown on the numbered, referenced, and dated sheets of the Collins Engineering Final Site Plan noted above. These four site plan sheets are referenced/attached to this CSP only to memorialize the locations of signs N01, N05 and N06 and the landscaping proximate to those signs and to provide construction details for sign N01 (Sheet 17). Any later amendments or changes to these CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 2 Page 27 of 125 sheets are irrelevant to this CSP, unless the changes alter the referenced sign locations and landscaping, in which case amendment of the CSP may be required. * Re: N02, N03, and N04. Address numbers are not regulated by ordinance; however, because they are components of a building subject to design review, inclusion in the CSP will serve as design review approval. Proposed Signage • N01: Monument sign, externally illuminated (from ground level). Located at corner of East High Street and 10th Street NE. • N02, N03, and N04: Wall signs, non-illuminated channel letters (building address). • N05 and N06: Monument signs, externally illuminated (from ground level). Located at the East High Street and 10th Street NE entrances to the parking. Review of the signage types proposed by the CSP Note: Except for what is permitted under Section 34-1027, the following will apply to this CSP. Signage types as currently defined by City Code Division 4, Section 34-1038 (a) through (i). (a) Awning or canopy. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (b) Freestanding signs. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (c) Marquee signs. Not included in proposed CSP; therefore, not permitted. (d) Monument signs. Three (3) monument signs in proposed CSP: N01, N05, and N06 CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 3 Page 28 of 125 N01: • Monument sign, black letters on white, non-illuminated • 4’-2” h x 14’-5” w • Height to top of sign: 4’-2” above grade. • Area: 70.07 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Height is within the maximum 6’-0” allowed. ▪ Individual sign area exceeds the 24 square foot maximum. N05 and N06: • Monument sign, black letters on white, non-illuminated • 7’-0” h x 4’-0” w • Height to top of sign: 7’-0” above grade, excluding the 6” concrete base and 6” extension of the decorative post. (Top of monument structure will be 8’-0” above including the base and post extension.) • Area per sign: 28 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Height exceeds maximum 6’-0” allowed. ▪ Individual sign area exceeds the 24 square foot maximum. (g) Sandwich board signs.* • Not included in CSP, therefore not permitted. (* Defined in the EC Design Guidelines as Temporary Signs, which differs from the Code definition; however, neither are permitted by the CSP.) (h) Temporary signs. • Not included in proposed CSP; however, they may be permitted by reference as currently defined in Section 34-1038(h) of the City Code. (i) Wall signs. • Not included in CSP, therefore not permitted. Review of the aggregate signage area proposed by the CSP Per Section 34-1032 - Maximum sign area and Section 34-1044 - Entrance corridor districts— Special regulations. N01, N05 and N06: • Aggregate area: 126.07 square feet • Comparison to by-right signage: ▪ Aggregate area exceeds the maximum 75 square feet allowed. (Within an Entrance Corridor, the aggregate area of all signs allowed on a parcel shall not exceed 75 square feet, unless as otherwise approved within a CSP.) Note: N02, N03, and N04 are not included in the aggregate signage area. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 4 Page 29 of 125 Review of the EC Design Guidelines for Signs (from Chapter III. Guidelines for Sites) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_ERB.pdf 1. Place signs so that they do not obstruct architectural elements and details that define the design of the building. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 2. Respect the design and visibility of signs for adjacent businesses. Staff Comment: CSP complies. (See photos of nearby signage.) 3. Use colors and appropriate materials that complement the materials and color scheme of the building, including accent and trim colors. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 4. Use a minimal number of colors per sign where possible. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 5. Exterior illumination of signs shall comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. Exterior neon is discouraged. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 6. Illumination of any sign shall not be directed toward any residential area or adjacent street. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 7. Consider using a comprehensive signage plan for larger developments. Staff Comment: Applicant has proposed a CSP. 8. Encourage the use of monument signs (rather than freestanding signs) with accent landscaping at the base along corridors. Staff Comment: CSP complies. 9. Internally lit signs should use an opaque background so only letters are lit. Staff Comment: CSP complies. Signs are not internally lit. 10. Flashing lights are prohibited. CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 5 Page 30 of 125 Staff Comment: CSP complies. Review of the requirements for a comprehensive signage plan Per City Code Section 34-1045(e) (1) A written narrative description of the overall plan, including, without limitation: a tally of the total number of signs included within the coverage of the plan, and a summary of how the applicant believes the comprehensive signage plan will serve the objectives set forth within Section 34-1021; Staff Comment: Information submitted. From applicant’s narrative: ▪ Adequate signs promote the general health, safety and welfare and help to create an attractive and harmonious environment. The property has two street frontages with a partially elevated parking lot and a below ground parking lot. Signs are necessary to identify the citizens searching for parking and entrances. Signs are necessary for this medical facility to be identifiable on both street frontages. ▪ Patients and citizens traveling here need to be able to identify their destination and adequate signs help to protect the public investment in the creation, maintenance, safety and appearance of its streets, highways and other public areas by eliminating motorist confusion. The signs provided are the minimum necessary for this location to be visible from all lanes of travel under existing treescapes etc. ▪ The signs proposed will help to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation and confusion in the field of vision that could otherwise result if signs were not regulated as provided herein. There are three wall mounted signs that are appropriately sized for the façade and visible to motorists and pedestrians from their patterns of approach. The signs will not produce clutter and are aesthetically appealing. ▪ There are two street frontages and three parking lot entries that need to be identified. It's important to protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to residents, tourists and other visitors as sources of economic development. The signs here will provide for adequate notice of this destination to prevent stacking of cars on the street while informing motorists when approaching of their destination. ▪ This is the minimum necessary to accomplish the above objectives. (2) A color illustration or photograph of each sign included within the plan. For signs with multiple faces, an illustration or photograph shall be provided for each face. For monument and pole signs, an illustration or photograph of proposed landscaping shall be provided; Staff Comment: Color illustrations provided. Installation of the monument signs will conform to the landscape plan. (3) A written description of the type, size (dimensions), materials, and proposed location of each sign; CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 6 Page 31 of 125 Staff Comment: Information submitted. (4) A map or other written identification and description of all existing signs on the property comprising the proposed development; Staff Comment: New project. No existing signs. (5) Color illustrations or photographs of signage existing on adjacent properties; Staff Comment: Staff reviewed adjacent signage. (6) A written description (and illustration or photograph) of proposed lighting (for illuminated signs). Staff Comment: The three (3) monument signs will be externally lit. Applicant provided fixture and lamping spec. Staff Recommendation Relative to the installation height and area of the three wall signs monument signs (N01, N05 and N06) staff finds the proposed CSP to be consistent with the EC Design Guidelines and the vision for the East High Street Entrance Corridor. Staff recommends the ERB find this CSP appropriate and recommend that Council approve the request. Should the ERB consider a recommendation for approval, staff suggests the following conditions: • Signs N01, N05, and N06. (Monuments) Externally lit. Lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature (CT) not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index (CRI) not less than 80, preferably not less than 90. • Signs N02, N03 and N04. (Building address numbers) Not illuminated. Holes for anchors will be within the mortar joints. No holes will be made into the brick and/or stone. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received relative to the design. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street, satisfies the ERB’s criteria and is compatible with this Entrance Corridor and that the ERB recommends City Council approve this Comprehensive Signage Plan as submitted. … as submitted and with the following modification/conditions: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 7 Page 32 of 125 Alternate Motion Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street, does not satisfy the ERB’s criteria and is not compatible with this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reasons the ERB recommends City Council deny this Comprehensive Signage Plan. Attachments: • Attachment 1: Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street o Summarized in Information submitted on page 2, above • Attachment 2: East High Street Entrance Corridor (from EC Design Guidelines) • Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report (Final June 29, 2022) 8 Page 33 of 125 for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO1) Page 34 of 125 for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO5) Page 35 of 125 for Sentara CSP June 17, 2022 (sign NO6) Page 36 of 125 Page 37 of 125 Sentara CSP TMP 530273000 June 17, 2022 - 1 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative Page 38 of 125 June 17, 2022 - 2 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative Page 39 of 125 Jun 17, 2022 3 of 3 Sentara CSP Narrative Page 40 of 125 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  )HEUXDU\ 5(9,6,21  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 41 of 125 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 1 N05 N06 1 1 1 1 Note: Locations are approximate. Specific locations per pages 5 and 10. 1 1RVLJQVZLOOEHDGGHGWRWKHEXLOGLQJFDQRSLHV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 42 of 125 (;,67,1* ¶´  ´´ ´ ¶´ ´´ ´ ´ ´   352326(' ¶´ 14'-5" ¶´  ¶´ 13'-11" ¶´  ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´   ¶´ ¶´ There will be no signage on the canopy 1&8672002180(17 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 43 of 125 ¶¶ ¶´ 7KHPRQXPHQWVLJQGHVLJQZLOOFRQIRUP JHQHUDOO\WRWKHVFKHPDWLFVKRZQEHORZ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ´ 0RQXPHQWVLJQERG\ZLOOQRWH[FHHGDKHLJKW RI¶LQFOXGLQJWKH´EDVHDZLGWKRI¶DQG ´ ´ DGHSWKRI´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ´ ´ $OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVDSSOLHGWRWKHVLJQERG\ PXVWEHLQGLYLGXDOO\FXWOHWWHUV$FU\OLFSDQHOV DQGDOXPLQXPRYHUOD\VDUHQRWSHUPLWWHG ,QWHUQDOLOOXPLQDWLRQLVQRWSHUPLWWHG$OOOHWWHULQJ ¶´ ¶´ DQGORJRVPXVWPDLQWDLQDPLQLPXP´FOHDU VSDFHDURXQGWKHHGJHVRIWKHVLJQERG\ ¶ 14'-5" ¶´ $3DLQWHGDOXPLQXPVLJQFDELQHWSUH¿QLVKHGFRORUWR PDWFK$OSROLF%*<*UH\3DQHOVRQEXLOGLQJ %3UHFDVWFRQFUHWHFDSVVPRRWK¿QLVKQRFRORUDGGHG &6WRQHYHQHHUSLHUVXVLQJ³%RUDO&RXQWU\ ¶´ 1'-4" /HGJHVWRQ$VSHQ´WRPDWFKWKHEXLOGLQJ '´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUVPRXQWHGWR´ DOXPLQXPEDFNHUSDLQWHGWRPDWFKVLJQERG\UHFHVVHG LQWRVWRQHYHQHHUDQGJURXWHGLQWRSODFH (/RJRLV´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUV VWXGPRXQWHGWRVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGWRPDWFK306& ¶´ 14'-5" DQG:KLWH)RQWLV3DODWLQR )/RJRLV´ODVHUFXWDOXPLQXPSODWHOHWWHUV VWXGPRXQWHGWRVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGWRPDWFK306& $ ¶´ ´  ¶´ 13'-11" ¶´ ¶  DQG:KLWH)RQWLV*REROG ´ ¶´ ´ 0RQXPHQWZLOOEHH[WHUQDOO\LOOXPLQDWHGXVLQJ'HOWD % $UFKLWHFWXUDO'LUHFWLRQDO/('8S/LJKWV VHHVSHFL¿FDWLRQ VKHHWDWWKHHQGRIWKLVGRFXPHQW  ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ & ¶´ ¶´ ´ ´ ´ ´ ¶´   ¶´ ¶´ ¶´ ) ' ( 1&8672002180(17'(7$,/6 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 44 of 125 Note: Referenced Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan, revised April 19, 2022: Sheet 3 - Site Plan; Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan; Sheet 7 - Landscaping Plan; and Sheet 17 - Sign Details. $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 45 of 125 (;,67,1* ´ ´ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 46 of 125 (;,67,1* ´ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 47 of 125 (;,67,1* ¶ $´DOXPLQXPGLJLWVSDLQWHGEODFNVWXGPRXQWHGWR IDFDGHIRQWLV)XWXUD%ROG&RQGHQVHG 352326(' $ ¶´ ´  ´[´$/80678''5,//(' 7$33(',172&873/$7($1' 6(7,1:$//:(32;< ¶´ 1$GGUHVV N04 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 48 of 125 7KHWUDIILFGLUHFWLRQDOVLJQVZLOOFRQIRUPJHQHUDOO\WRWKH VFKHPDWLFVKRZQEHORZ0RQXPHQWVLJQERG\ZLOOQRW H[FHHGDKHLJKWRI¶LQFOXGLQJWKH´EDVHDZLGWKRI¶ DQGDGHSWKRI´ $OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVDSSOLHGWRWKHVLJQERG\PXVWEH LQGLYLGXDOO\FXWOHWWHUV$FU\OLFSDQHOVDQGDOXPLQXP RYHUOD\VDUHQRWSHUPLWWHG,QWHUQDOLOOXPLQDWLRQLVQRW SHUPLWWHG$OOOHWWHULQJDQGORJRVPXVWIROORZWKHOD\RXW UXOHVVKRZQEHORZZLWKDPLQLPXP´FOHDUDURXQGWKH SHULPHWHU 1 1 ' 0HGLFDO2IÀFHV 0HGLFDO2IÀFHV ( $GYDQFHG,PDJLQJ $GYDQFHG,PDJLQJ Note: Locations are approximate. Specific locations per pages 5 and 10. /DE6HUYLFHV /DE6HUYLFHV ) &RIIHH6KRS &RIIHH6KRS $)DEULFDWHGDOXPLQXPVLJQFDELQHWSDLQWHGZKLWHRQDOOH[SRVHGVXUIDFHV $ %)DEULFDWHGDFFHQWXVLQJ5,0(;µ&DPEULGJH¶VDWLQVWDLQOHVVVWHHO % &´5DLVHGFRQFUHWHIRXQGDWLRQ¿QLVKHGVPRRWKXQFRORUHG (DVW+LJK (DVW+LJK '/RJRLV0WUDQVOXFHQWYLQ\Oµ0DULJROG¶2YHUODLGRQZKLWHRSDTXHYLQ\O DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHWRFDELQHW 6WUHHW 6WUHHW * :RUGPDUNLV$YHU\RSDTXHYLQ\O$%ODFN¶DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHRIFDELQHW)RQWLV3DODWLQR & ($UURZLVDSSOLHGWRYLQ\OWRPDWFK306&µ5R\DO9LROHW¶ )&RS\LV$YHU\RSDTXHYLQ\O$µ%ODFN¶DSSOLHGWRVXUIDFHRIFDELQHW)RQWLV)XWXUD&RQGHQVHG%ROG *&RS\LVVXUIDFHDSSOLHGYLQ\OWRPDWFK306&µ5R\DO9LROHW¶)RQWLV$ULDO5HJXODU 7UDIILF'LUHFWLRQDO6LJQVZLOOEHH[WHUQDOO\LOOXPLQDWHGXVLQJ'HOWD$UFKLWHFWXUDO'LUHFWLRQDO/('8S/LJKWV 352326(' 1 167'6 VHHVSHFL¿FDWLRQVKHHWDWWKHHQGRIWKLVGRFXPHQW  $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 49 of 125 Note: Referenced Collins Engineering 10th & High Street Final Site Plan, revised April 19, 2022: Sheet 3 - Site Plan; Sheet 4 - Grading and Utility Plan; Sheet 7 - Landscaping Plan; and Sheet 17 - Sign Details. N05 N06 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 50 of 125 $''5(66 WK +LJK6WUHHW_&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$ '$7(  5(9,6,21  '5$:1%< &$URFKR 3$*(  ,QWHUQDWLRQDO3DUNZD\ Page 9LUJLQLD%HDFK9$ 51 of 125 Page 52 of 125 Page 53 of 125 Page 54 of 125 Page 55 of 125 Attachment 2: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report July 12, 2022 East High Street Entrance Corridor (from EC Design Guidelines) http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps%20of%20Corridors_ERB.pdf Overall Description High Street is the traditional downtown entry corridor from I-64 and Route 250 east and the growth areas of the eastern part of Albemarle County. Its character changes as one goes up the hill west towards downtown. The lower parts of the corridor have older, small retail and auto-oriented service establishments with no streetscape improvements. Small scale dwellings begin at Gillespie Street and continue up the hill. Older, larger and more historic residences dominate the closer one gets to the downtown. Newer medical office infill structures are mixed in with residences along much of this section of the corridor due to the proximity of Martha Jefferson Hospital. Positive Aspects • Hillside corridor provides views and vistas • Proximity of Rivanna River offers opportunities for new, more intense uses • Older residential sections provide transition to downtown historic districts Vision The southeast side of High Street from Long Street to the light at Meade Avenue shares similar characteristics with the Long Street corridor. Properties here have potential to be redeveloped at an urban scale with shallow setbacks, higher density, and mixed uses. The natural character of the river should be preserved, and riverfront properties may incorporate the river as a site amenity. Future infill and redevelopment on the northwest side of High Street from Riverdale Drive to Locust Avenue and on the southeast side of High Street from Meade Avenue to 10th Street should complement the smaller scale of the abutting residential neighborhoods on either side. The retail areas of this part of the corridor will continue to provide basic service-business functions until redeveloped into a mix of uses including residential. This area may be considered for nearby offsite or shared parking in the future, due to the small parcel sizes and convenience to transit and the downtown area. From Locust Avenue to Market Street there will be opportunities for denser development. The area surrounding Martha Jefferson Hospital is a potential historic district. A pedestrian environment should be encouraged along the entire corridor with sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. Sub-Area C: 9th Street from High to Market Street Description Ninth Street between High and Market Streets delineates the northern edge of the central downtown area. Gas stations are located at both ends of the corridor. Early-twentieth-century residences converted to professional use for either the adjacent court complex or Martha Jefferson Hospital are intermingled with offices and banks of more recent construction. • Streetscape: Mixed-use, mixed-scale, mixed-setback, concrete median, 4 lanes, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights, concrete sidewalks. • Site: Parking in front of several structures, large trees on private sites, some edge landscaping, mixed private site lighting. Tree planting and consistent sidewalks in this area have started to create a more pedestrian-oriented environment. • Buildings: 1-3 stories, several older residences, 2 gas stations. Page 56 of 125 Attachment 2: CSP for 920 East High Street - ERB Staff Report July 12, 2022 Recommended General Guidelines • Provide streetscape improvements to give this section of corridor better definition as it meets the downtown • Improve edge conditions of site with plantings • Relate new infill architectural design more to existing character of older buildings Guidelines Specific to the Zoning 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. Page 57 of 125 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 1 of 4) 10 7 4 5 1 3 8 9 6 2 920 East High Street 1 2 Page 58 of 125 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 2 of 4) 3 4 5 Page 59 of 125 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 3 of 4) 6 7 8 Page 60 of 125 Attachment 3: Nearby signage in the East High EC - CSP 920 E. High St., July 12, 2022 (pg 4 of 4) 9 10 Page 61 of 125 RESOLUTION Approving a Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street WHEREAS the owner of a development located at 920 East High Street (“Landowner”) submitted an application seeking approval of a comprehensive signage plan for the medical office building located on this site as presented, referenced, and incorporated into the City staff report dated July 12, 2022 in this matter (“Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan”); and WHEREAS on July 12, 2022, the City’s Entrance Corridor Review Board and the City’s Planning Commission reviewed the Landowner’s Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan and recommended approval of the plan with conditions; and WHEREAS in accordance with Section 34-1045(c) of the Charlottesville City Code, City Council has determined that: (1) There is good cause for deviating from a strict application of the requirements of Section 34-1020, et seq. (City Code Chapter 34, Article IX, Division 4 – Signs), and (2) The Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan, with the modifications recommended by the Planning Commission/Entrance Corridor Review Board, will serve the public purposes and objectives set forth within City Code Section 34-1021 at least as well, or better, than the signage that would otherwise be permitted for this development; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the Proposed Comprehensive Signage Plan for 920 East High Street is approved subject to the following conditions: a. Signs N01, N05, and N06: (Monuments) Externally lit. Lamping will be dimmable, have a Color Temperature (CT) not exceeding 3,000K, and have a Color Rendering Index (CRI) not less than 80, preferably not less than 90, and b. Signs N02, N03 and N04: (Building address numbers) Not illuminated. Holes for anchors will be within the mortar joints. No holes will be made into the brick and/or stone. Page 62 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Conduct Public Hearing and take action on the second reading of the Proposed Ordinance Presenter: Samuel Sanders, Jr., Deputy City Manager Staff Contacts: Lisa Robertson, City Attorney Title: Plastic Bag Tax (2nd reading and Public Hearing) Background During the 2020 General Assembly session, Virginia localities received enabling authority to impose a disposable plastic bag tax within their jurisdictional limits. The City of Charlottesville continues to be keenly concerned about the equity impact of such a tax. The legislation allows localities to impose a five cent ($.05) per bag tax on disposable plastic bags provided by certain retailers. Recommendations from organizations advocating for this tax focus on the potential benefit of creating a local source of funding dedicated to environmental cleanup and litter/ pollution mitigation. Specifically, the argument that pollution and litter disproportionately impact low wealth communities. Further, the ability to provide funding for reusable bags and environmental education efforts are intended to mitigate the cost burden from such a tax. The enabling legislation does include stipulations on the use of the associated revenues. Revenues from this tax must be used for programs supporting the following: 1. environmental cleanup, 2. litter and pollution mitigation, 3. environmental education efforts, and/or 4. to provide reusable bags to SNAP or WIC benefit recipients. Funding from this tax will not directly or immediately support any administrative responsibilities the City may undertake to promote this program. Revenue collection and distribution occurs at the State level and is remitted to the locality exclusively for the purposes listed above. City Staff would likely be required to engage in outreach to local businesses, agencies providing social services, and citizens to educate the community about available resources for alternative, re-usable bags. Future City Councils may have the ability to allocate this remitting tax funding towards providing an ongoing program for re-useable bags. Discussion Page 63 of 125 Council is required to conduct a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to impose a disposable plastic bag tax. Virginia Code § 58.1-17.45 through 58.1-1748 grants localities the authority to impose a five cent ($.05) per bag tax on disposable plastic bags provided by grocery stores, convenience stores, or pharmacies. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3007, “before any local tax levy shall be increased in any…city…., such proposed increase shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality affected at least seven days before the increased levy is made and the citizens of the locality shall be given an opportunity to appear before, and be heard by, the local governing body on the subject of such increase.” The attached proposed Ordinance would amend City Code Chapter 30, Taxation, Article II by adding Division 3 to impose the plastic bag tax. Durable plastic bags designed for repeated use and plastic bags used solely to wrap, contain, or package certain goods to prevent damage or contamination are exempt from this tax. This exclusion would include packaging for ice cream, meat, fish, poultry, produce, unwrapped bulk food items, perishable food items, dry cleaning, prescription drugs, and multiple bags sold in containers for use as garbage, pet waste, or leaf removal bags. As referenced above future revenues from such tax must be used for programs supporting environmental cleanup, litter and pollution mitigation, environmental education efforts or to provide reusable bags to SNAP or WIC benefit recipients. Collection of the plastic bag tax would be performed by the State Department of Taxation. State Code requires localities to provide a certified copy of the ordinance to the Tax Commissioner of the Commonwealth at least three months prior to the date the ordinance becomes effective. The effective date for the disposable plastic bag tax is proposed to be January 1, 2023. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan This proposed ordinance meets the City Council vision to be a leader in innovation, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice. The ordinance conforms with the Strategic Plan’s Goal 2 to be a Healthy and Safe City and Goal 3 to maintain a Beautiful Environment. Community Engagement Public hearing is required, after publication of notice, per Va. Code Sec. 58.1-3007. The public hearing will need to be advertised for the date of the second reading of the proposed ordinance. Budgetary Impact Imposing the disposable plastic bag tax would increase revenues. However, these revenues would be dedicated to qualifying expenditures as listed above. Recommendation (1) Conduct a public hearing, then (2) consider the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance by motion. Suggested Motion: "I move the ORDINANCE amending Chapter 30 of the City Code, to establish a new article 19 (disposable plastic bag tax)" Alternatives By motion, Council may decide not to proceed with a plastic bag tax. Council may also elect to defer the matter indefinitely without moving forward to a public hearing. Page 64 of 125 Attachments 1. Ordinance - Plastic Bag Tax Page 65 of 125 ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 30 (TAXATION) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, TO ESTABLISH A NEW ARTICLE XIX (DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAG TAX) WHEREAS the Virginia General Assembly passed Virginia Code § 58.1-17.45 et seq. enabling localities to enact a disposable plastic bag tax; and WHEREAS the funds collected from this tax shall be used to provide funding for local environmental cleanup, litter and pollution mitigation, environmental education efforts, and to provide reusable bags to SNAP or WIC benefit recipients within the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS the Charlottesville City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City to mitigate the use of disposable plastic bags within the City of Charlottesville and collect funds to promote healthy and safe environmental conditions; and WHEREAS the Community has been afforded an opportunity to comment on this tax levy after due notice in accordance with Virginia Code § 58.1-3007 and the City Council has thoroughly considered the interest of its citizens and the need to issue this tax levy for the benefit of the City’s overall environment and pollution mitigation efforts; and now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, THAT Chapter 30 (Taxation) is hereby amended and reenacted, as follows: 1. Enact a new Article XIX (DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAG TAX), as follows: ARTICLE XIX. DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAG TAX Sec. 30-480- - Disposable plastic bag tax imposed; Exceptions. (a) There is hereby imposed a tax in the amount of five cents ($0.05) for each disposable plastic bag provided, whether or not provided free of charge, to all consumers of tangible personal property by retailers in grocery stores, convenience stores, or drug stores. (b) Any tax imposed pursuant to the provisions of this article shall not apply to the following: (1) Durable plastic bags with handles that are specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and that are at least four mils thick; (2) Plastic bags that are solely used to wrap, contain, or package ice cream, meat, fish, poultry, produce, unwrapped bulk food items, or perishable food items to avoid damage or contamination; (3) Plastic bags used to carry dry cleaning or prescription drugs; and (4) Multiple plastic bags sold in packages and intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or leaf removal bags. State law reference(s)—Va. Code § 58.1-1745 and § 58.1-1746. Page 66 of 125 Sec. 30-481- Definitions. As used in this Division: "Convenience store" means an establishment that (i) has an enclosed room in a permanent structure where stock is displayed and offered for sale and (ii) maintains an inventory of edible items intended for human consumption consisting of a variety of such items of the types normally sold in grocery stores. "Disposable plastic bag" means a plastic bag not intended for reuse that is provided by a retail establishment to a customer at the point of purchase to transport items purchased. "Drugstore" means an establishment that sells medicines prepared by a licensed pharmacist pursuant to a prescription and other medicines and items for home and general use. "Grocery store" means an establishment that has an enclosed room in a permanent structure and that sells food and other items intended for human consumption, including a variety of ingredients commonly used in the preparation of meals. This definition does not include food banks, farmers markets, or mobile food units. "Retail establishment" means any grocery store, convenience store, or drugstore that maintains regular business hours at a fixed place of business within the City of Charlottesville. The term Retail establishment includes any large retailer within the City that contains a grocery store, convenience store or drug store. Sec. 30-482 – Collection, Administration, Appropriation of Revenue and Adoption of State Law. (a) Any tax imposed under this section shall be collected by the retail establishment, along with the purchase price and all other fees and taxes, at the time the consumer pays for such personal property. (b) All revenue accruing to the City from the tax imposed under this ordinance are to be used for one or more of the following purposes: (1) environmental cleanup, (2) providing education programs designed to reduce environmental waste, (3) mitigating pollution and litter, or (4) providing reusable bags to recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC) benefits or such other programs as authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (c) Virginia Code Title 58.1, Chapter 17, Article 12 (Virginia Code § 58.1-1745 et seq.) is incorporated into this division by reference and made applicable to the City, mutatis mutandis. State law reference(s)—Va. Code § 58.1-1745 et seq. 2. The Clerk of Council shall provide a certified copy of this ordinance to the Tax Commissioner of the Commonwealth on or before September 30, 2022; and 3. This ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2023. Page 67 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Agenda Date: August 1, 2022. Actions Required: Public Hearing/Approval of Resolution to Appropriate Funds (1st of 2 readings). Presenter: Michael C. Rogers, Interim City Manager. Staff Contacts: Sam Sanders, Deputy City Manager for Operations. Ashley Reynolds Marshall, Deputy City Manager for REDI. Chris Cullinan, Director of Finance. Krisy Hammill, Director of Budget and Performance Management. Title: Resolution Appropriating Funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) for Eligible Local Activities - $14,799,565. Background: On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the Act) to provide additional relief for individuals and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The Act includes funding for state, local, and tribal governments as well as education and COVID-19-related testing, vaccination support, and research. The City of Charlottesville received a total of $19,609,708 from the US Treasury Department in two equal tranches in May 2021 and June 2022. These funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. To date, City Council has passed four (4) ARP appropriations totaling $4,810,143 to address urgent community and organizational needs arising from the impacts of COVID-19. This agenda item appropriates the remaining ARP funds totaling $14,799,565. Discussion: This appropriation includes six requests that are detailed below. These requests are eligible for ARP funds per the guidance provided by US Treasury in their April 1, 2022 Final Rule. The appropriation includes requests to “replace public sector revenue”, “responding to negative economic impacts”, and 1 Page 68 of 125 “responding to the public health emergency”. Request #1: Replace Lost Public Sector Revenue. Amount Requested: $10,000,000. ARP Eligibility: Replace lost public sector revenue. Description: ARP recipients are given two options to determine their revenue loss: (1) a standard allowance of up to $10,000,000, (2) calculating their jurisdiction’s specific revenue loss each year using US Treasury’s formula which compares actual revenue to a counterfactual trend. The City is electing to take the standard $10,000,000 allowance. Recipients must use replacement funds for government services; generally, “services traditionally provided by recipient governments are government services, unless Treasury has stated otherwise”. The City proposes to use replacement funds for the following government services in the following amounts: Use #1: Charlottesville Fire Department Accreditation Findings. Amount: $1,104,000. Description: These funds will address findings from the accreditation team regarding minimum staffing levels and command and control safety. Use #2: Charlottesville Fire Department Retention Bonus. Amount: $450,000. Description: A $4,000 bonus will be paid all sworn personnel. Use #3: Sheriff’s Office Retention Bonus. Amount: $50,000. Description: A $4,000 bonus will be paid to all sworn personnel. Use #4: Downtown Mall Improvements. Amount: $300,000. Description: As the 50th anniversary of the downtown mall approaches, these funds would be used to initiate a process to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the City’s downtown core and develop/implement improvements to ensure success over the next 50 years. Use #5: Wayfinding Improvements. Amount: $100,000. Description: The City’s current wayfinding program, which is important to visitors, was 2 Page 69 of 125 installed in 2008 and has not been updated. These funds would be used to conduct a review and make necessary changes to the signage system. Use #6: Additional funds for “Safe Routes to School” program. Amount: $500,000. Description: With limited bus capacity in the upcoming school year, these funds will provide additional support for safe, convenient, and fun opportunities for children to bicycle and walk to and from schools under the City’s “Safe Routes to School” program. Use #7: City Shelter Emergency Generator System. Amount: $40,000. Description: Funds would be used to purchase an emergency generator system for the City shelter site and Charlottesville High School. Use #8: Facilities Repair Fund. Amount: $200,000. Description: These funds will be used to restore the $400,000 that has historically been allocated to the Facilities Repair Fund annually. The allocation was reduced back in FY 21 to $200,000 to help offset other budgetary needs during COVID and it has remained unchanged. These funds will help catch up on some deferred projects. Use #9: Equipment Replacement Fund. Amount: $829,000. Description: These funds will be used to help supplement the amount available for new vehicles and equipment. The funding for the City’s fleet replacement plan has been reduced over the last few years due to other competing budget needs relating to COVID. These additional funds will help to revive the scheduled replacement plan. Use #10: Strategic Investment Fund. Amount: $1,000,000. Description: The funds would be set aside to help the City quickly respond to unique opportunities having strategic value. Use #11: Agency Investment Fund. Amount: $1,000,000. Description: Nonprofit agencies provide support to citizens in ways that the local government cannot. This funding support will be open to competitive grant applications from our local nonprofits in a process that is separate from the Vibrant Communities 3 Page 70 of 125 Fund due to the requirements that the Department of Treasury has on how ARPA dollars can be allocated to nonprofit programs. The City Manager seeks innovative programming that will make a measurable impact in our community. Programing could include emergency housing assistance, financial services to the unbanked/underbanked, mental health in-patient treatment, outreach to those who are not yet engaged in mental health treatment, or evidence-based community violence intervention programs. A detailed application process will be released in CY2023 that ensures all applicants are aware of the ARPA regulations, policies, and guidelines. These will be one-time grants, and funding of applications will not be guaranteed. Use #12: Community Arts and Festivals Investments. Amount: $580,000 Description: Communities are enriched by opportunities that focus on the arts, community education, cultural celebrations, and family-friendly opportunities. At this time, the City Manager wishes to be able to consider providing support both internally and externally for local festivals, cultural events, and educational conferences. This fund will allow the City Manager to be responsive to some community requests, but also to potentially ensure that the organization itself can engage the community through art, education, cultural enrichment, or recreation opportunities. Use #13: Support for Human Resources Office. Amount: $270,000. Description: The Office of Human Resources works diligently to ensure the best people management possible. In order to accomplish those goals, the City Manager recognizes that additional staff members need to be added to their team including a Deputy Director of Human Resources, HR Recruiter, and an HR Labor Manager. Funding is requested through the revenue loss pool to provide one-year support for those positions giving the opportunity to engage talent now, but time to ensure those roles are worked into the FY’24 budget. Use #14: Strategic Planning. Amount: $200,000. Description: These funds will be used to help Council design and implement the City’s Strategic Plan update. Use #15: Human Rights Commission Investigator and Administrative Support. Amount: $176,000. Description: The Office of Human Rights was asked by City Council in their last ordinance 4 Page 71 of 125 update to investigate the opportunity to become a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP). FHAPs are partnerships between the federal government and local agencies to provide protection to the public against discrimination in housing. The office has investigated this opportunity, and along with an update to its ordinance, they would need to ensure that they have the required staffing to provide critical services to those in our community who have been discriminated against as they seek a basic need- shelter. The City Manager recognizes these HUD requirements and proposed to ensure that the Office of Human Rights is equipped with an Investigator and Administrative Intake Assistance in order to support the needs of an FHAP. This funding will bridge the office to be able to engage those employees now, should Council vote to approve the ordinance change that will allow the Office to be officially recognized as an FHAP. These positions will be rolled into the City Manager’s FY24 proposed budget to ensure continuity and stability of this work that also will become a critical part of the City’s Affordable Housing Plan programing. Use #16: Affordable Housing and Homeless Services. Amount: $1,630,000. Description: In continuing recognition of the City’s Affordable Housing Plan, the City Manager recognizes that programing provided by nonprofit organizations is critical to ensuring that all of our neighbors and friends are able to access a basic need – shelter. Funding in this area will count towards the City’s Affordable Housing Goals but will also be a competitive grant application process for local nonprofits like the Agency Investment Funds. These funds will be a separate process from current Office of Community Solutions housing funds, as well as Vibrant Community’s Fund dollars as the Department of Treasury has specific eligible programs and support limits that must be adhered to. The City Manager seeks innovative programming that will make a measurable impact in our community. Treasury-eligible programming could focus on supporting long-term housing security, providing emergency housing assistance, as well as providing emergency programs or services for homeless individuals. A detailed application process will be released in CY2023 that ensures all applicants are aware of the ARPA regulations, policies, and guidelines. These will be one-time grants, and funding of applications will not be guaranteed. Use #17: COVID Contingency. Amount: $1,571,000. Description: These funds will be held in reserve to mitigate any future, unforeseen health/economic/social impacts from COVID on the community and/or City organization. 5 Page 72 of 125 Request #2: Funding for Charlottesville-Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB). Amount Requested: $750,000. ARP Eligibility: Responding to negative economic impacts. Description: The CACVB’s budget is based on the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) collections from two fiscal years ago. As of July 1, 2022, the CACVB’s budget reflects the TOT collection from July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021 when tourism essentially stopped due to the pandemic. The CACVB uses these funds to market the City as a premier tourism destination and boost visitation at lodging, retail, restaurant, attraction and additional partner locations. In 2019, the tourism industry accounted for $350 million direct visitor spending in Charlottesville City, employing nearly 3,500 people, generating more than $19.4 million in local tax revenue; and a healthy portion of visitor spending goes to locally owned businesses. The proposed $750,000 ARPA funding from the City would match the County’s contribution and would reinstate basic CACVB services through December 2024. Request #3: Pathways Fund Assistance. Amount Requested: $700,000. ARP Eligibility: Responding to negative economic impacts. Description: Continued support for emergency financial assistance through the Pathways Fund. Request #4: Community Health Initiative. Amount Requested: $500,000. ARP Eligibility: Responding to the public health emergency. Description: These funds will be used for the City to pilot work that will directly engage members of our community through a public health lens in order to be more responsive to the emerging needs of our neighbors and friends. Potential focus areas have been identified as homelessness supports, critical case management support, as well as mental health and wellness supports. Request #5: Meadowcreek Trail. Amount Requested: $500,000. ARP Eligibility: Responding to negative economic impacts. Description: These funds will be used to fully fund the completion of this important link in the City’s trail system and provide safe and healthy pedestrian routes to nearby disproportionately impacted neighborhoods. Request #6: Unallocated ARP Balance. Amount Requested: $2,349,565. ARP Eligibility: To be determined. Description: These funds will be allocated in the future for eligible uses. 6 Page 73 of 125 Budgetary Impact: While the City has several years to spend ARP funds, these funds are one-time in nature. Approximately $1.9M of the proposed requests/uses have on-going costs which will need to be funded in future budgets. Public Outreach/Input: A public hearing is required for this item. Alignment with Council Vision Areas and Strategic Plan: This resolution contributes to Goal 1 of the Strategic Plan, to be an inclusive community of self-sufficient residents; Goal 2 to be a healthy and safe City; and Goal 5 to be a well-managed and responsive organization. Recommendation: Staff recommend that Council approve the attached resolution. Alternatives: City Council may elect not to appropriate funding for these purposes at this time or may elect other ARP eligible program expenditures. Attachments: 1. Appropriation. 7 Page 74 of 125 RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING FUNDING FOR American Rescue Plan for Eligible Local Activities $14,799,565 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of 14,799,565 from American Rescue Plan funding is hereby designated to be available for expenditure for costs associated with following eligible purposes and amounts: Replace Lost Public Sector Revenue. . $10,000,000. Funding for CACVB. $750,000. Pathways Fund Assistance. $700,000. Community Health Initiative. $500,000. Meadowcreek Trail. $500,000. Unallocated Balance. $2,349,565. TOTAL. $14,799,565. Note: account codes will be established following the first reading and public hearing on this appropriation for inclusion in the second reading and adoption. 8 Page 75 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Consideration of an application for rezoning Presenter: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Staff Contacts: Brian Haluska, Principal Planner Title: 415 10th Street NW, Rezoning from R-1S to B-2 (1 of 2 readings) Background Dairy Holdings, LLC (owner) has submitted a Rezoning Application pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-41 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classification of the above parcel of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from the existing R-1S (Residential Small Lot) to B-2 (Commercial) with proffers. The Subject Property has road frontage on 10th Street NW and Grady Avenue. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for General Residential (Sensitive Community Area). Discussion The Planning Commission considered this application at their meeting on July 12, 2022. The discussion centered on the proposed proffers and how the proposed uses would fit into the potential new zoning map. The staff report and supporting documentation presented to the Planning Commission can be found starting at page 66 at the following link: Planning Commission Packet from July 12, 2022. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan The City Council Vision of Quality Housing Opportunities for All states that "Our neighborhoods feature a variety of housing types, including higher density, pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and cultural centers." Community Engagement On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing on this matter. Members of Page 76 of 125 the public spoke on the topic, and expressed concern for the lack of benefit to the adjacent community that the change in use would provide. Budgetary Impact No direct budgetary impact is anticipated as a direct result of this rezoning. Recommendation Staff recommends the application be approved. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the application be approved. Alternatives (1) by motion, City Council may approve the attached Ordinance (2) by motion, City Council may deny the Rezoning; (3) by motion, City Council may defer action on the Rezoning. Attachments 1. Dairy Church Proffer Statement (signed) 2. Ordinance RZO 415 10th St Page 77 of 125 PROFFER STATEMENT ZM22-00001 Project Name: 415 10th Street NW (Old Trinity Church) Real Estate Parcel Identification Number: 040046000 Owner of Record: Dairy Holdings, LLC Date: 7/14/22 Approximately 0.188 acres to be rezoned from R1S Residential to B-2 Commercial Dairy Holdings, LLC is the sole owner of Real Estate Identification Number 040046000 (the “Property”), which is the subject of rezoning application ZM22-00001, a project known as “415 10th Street (Old Trinity Church)” (the “Project”). Pursuant to Section 34-64(c), of the City of Charlottesville Code, the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable: 1. All non-residential uses allowed under B-2 zoning, other than Art Gallery, Auditorium, Houses of Worship, Club (private), Music Hall, Educational Facilities, Technology Based Business, and Offices, shall not be permitted on the subject property. 2. The maximum number of residential dwelling units located on the property shall be one (1). 3. No additional vehicular ingress and egress to the subject property. OWNER: _________________________________________________ Dairy Holdings, LLC Page 78 of 125 AN ORDINANCE REZONING LAND FRONTING ON 10th STREET N.W. AND GRADY AVENUE FROM R-1S (RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) TO B-2 (COMMERCIAL) SUBJECT TO PROFFERED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS WHEREAS in order to facilitate a specific development project, Dairy Holdings, LLC (“Landowner”), has submitted rezoning application ZM22-00001, proposing a change in the zoning classification (“Proposed Rezoning”) of approximately 0.188 acres of land fronting on 10th Street N.W., and identified within the 2022 City real estate records by Real Estate Parcel Identification Number 040046000 (the “Subject Property”), from “R-1S” to “B-2”, with said Proposed Rezoning to be subject to several development conditions proffered by Landowner; and WHEREAS the purpose of the Proposed Rezoning application is to increase the number of permitted uses within an existing structure; and WHEREAS a public hearing on the Proposed Rezoning was conducted jointly by City Council and Planning Commission on July 12, 2022, following notice to the general public, to the property owner, and to adjacent property owners as required by law; and WHEREAS on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission voted to recommend the Proposed Rezoning to City Council for adoption, finding it to be consistent with the City’s goal of encouraging the adaptive use of existing buildings; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, THAT the Zoning District Map Incorporated in Section 34-1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Charlottesville, 1990, as amended, be and hereby is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 34-1. Zoning District Map. Rezoning all of the land designated within te City’s City real estate assessment records by Parcel Identification Number 040046000 (“Subject Property”), containing, in the aggregate, approximately 0.1888 acres from R-1S (Single-family Residential) to B-1 (Commercial), subject to the following proffered development conditions (“Proffers”), which were tendered by the Landowner in accordance with law and are hereby accepted by this City Council: Approved Proffers The use and development of the Subject Property shall be subject to the following development conditions voluntarily proffered by the Landowner, which conditions shall apply in addition to the regulations otherwise provided within the City’s zoning ordinance. Such proffers shall be binding to the Property, which means the proffers shall be transferred to all future property successors of the land: 1. The Subject Property shall be used for the following non-residential uses: Art Gallery, Auditorium, Houses of Worship, Club (private), Music Hall, Educational Facilities, 1 Page 79 of 125 Technology Based Business, and Offices. No other non-residential uses shall be permitted on the Subject Property, even if said use is otherwise permissible under the City’s B-2 zoning district classification. 2. The maximum number of residential dwelling units located on the Subject Property shall be one (1). 3. There shall be no additional vehicular ingress or egress to the Subject Property. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the City’s Zoning Administrator shall update the Zoning District Map to reflect this rezoning of the Subject Property subject to the proffered development conditions. 2 Page 80 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Adoption of Ordinance to designate 415 and415-B 10th Street N.W. an Individually Protected Property Presenter: Jeffrey Werner, Historic Preservation and Design Planner Staff Contacts: Jeffrey Werner, Historic Preservation and Design Planner Title: 415 and 415-B 10th Street NW - Designation of Property as an Individually Protected Property (1 of 2 readings) Background Per Sec. 34-274, City Council may make additions and deletions to the list of protected properties and, in evaluating such requests, consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural (BAR). Following discussions during the June 14, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, including the property owner’s expression of consent for IPP designation for 415/415-B 10th Street NW, an approximately 0.19-acre parcel with three existing structures—referred to as the church, the parish hall, and the rectory--at the NE corner of 10th Street, NW and Grady Avenue, staff prepared for the Planning Commission and the BAR an evaluation of the property and draft language for the zoning text and map amendments. On July 12, 2022, the Commission recommended and on July 19, 2022, the BAR recommended that Council approve the zoning text and zoning map amendments to designate the property an Individually Protected Property. Proposed Actions Revise §34-273. Individually protected properties as follows: Add 415/415-B 10th Street NW to the list of protected properties, and direct the zoning administrator to modify the Zoning Map referenced within §34-1 to note that, per the provisions of 34-273(b) the property at 415/415-B 10th Street N.W. is, by virtue of its designation as an individually protected property, added as a Minor Design Control District. Discussion Overview of Staff Analysis Staff prepared and submitted to the Planning Commission (July 12, 2022) and the BAR (July 19, 2022) an evaluation of the property applying the eight criteria under Sec. 274(b) and for consistency Page 81 of 125 with the 2021 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended designation due to the property’s special historic, cultural, and architectural significance and that designation will meet the Comprehensive Plan goals to support the recognition of historic properties and seek historic designation as a means to protect those resources. The Commission and the BAR concurred, approving motions recommending that Council approve the IPP designation. Planning Commission On July 12, 2022, the City’s Planning Commission, following an advertised public hearing and after consideration of the criteria in Sec. 34-274(b), approved the following: Recommend that City Council approve ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22-00001 amending and reenacting the Zoning Map incorporated within Section 34-1 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, by the rezoning of 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) to add a historic overlay district designation to the property, and also amending and reenacting Section 34-273 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990 as amended, to add this property to the City’s list of Individually Protected Properties. Board of Architectural Review On July 19, 2022, the City’s Board of Architectural Review, following an advertised public hearing and after consideration of the criteria in Sec. 34-274(b), approved the following: Having reviewed the criteria for designation of Individually Protected Properties per City Code Section 34-274, I move the BAR recommend that City Council approve the request to designate 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) an Individually Protected Properties. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan The proposed rezoning supports City Council’s vision for Arts and Culture: Our community has world- class performing, visual, and literary arts reflective of the unique character, culture, and diversity of Charlottesville. Charlottesville cherishes and builds programming around the evolving research and interpretation of our historic heritage and resources…. It also contributes to Goal 2 of the Strategic Plan: Be a safe, equitable, thriving, and beautiful community; and Objective 2.5: Provide natural and historic resources stewardship. Community Engagement On April 27, 2022, the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00 pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 10, 2022, the City’s Historic Resources Committee sent to the Planning Commission and City Council a letter requesting they “initiate the process necessary to establish 415 10th Street, NW, as a locally designated historic property, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures.” On July 12, 2022, the City’s Planning Commission, reviewed the request at an advertised public hearing. Page 82 of 125 On July 19, 2022, the City’s Board of Architectural, reviewed the request at an advertised public hearing. Budgetary Impact No budgetary impact. Recommendation The Planning Commission voted to recommend City Council approve the proposed designation, and the BAR voted to recommend City Council approve the proposed designation. Staff recommends City Council approve the proposed Ordinance. Suggested Motion: "I move the ORDINANCE amending City Code Section 34-273(b) to add Tax Map 4 Parcel 46 (address 415 and 415-B Tenth Street, N.W.) as an individually protected property and minor architectural design control district" Alternatives City Council may, by motion, decide to deny the proposed designation. Attachments 1. 415 10th St NW ZTA ZMA for IPP (PC final June 29)_Staff Report and attachments 2. Ordinance - 415 10th Street IPP for CC Page 83 of 125 City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report Joint City Council And Planning Commission Public Hearing Application for Designation of Property as an Individually Protected Property Application Number: ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22-00001 Date of Hearing: July 12, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Staff Report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner Date of Staff Report: June 29, 2022 Applicant: Dairy Holdings, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Joe Wregge Current Property Owner: Dairy Holdings, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 415/415-B 10th Street NW Tax Map & Parcel: 004046000 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.19 acres (8,450 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas) Current Zoning Classification: R-1S (Residential Single-Family Small Lot) Proposed Zoning Classification: B-2 Commercial Overlay District: None (IPP designation requested) Applicant’s Request: Dairy Holdings, LLC requests rezoning to designate as an Individually Protected Property (IPP) an approximately 0.19-acre parcel with three existing structures—referred to as church, parish hall, and rectory--at the NE corner of 10th Street, NW and Grady Avenue. This request would amend City Code Section 34-273(b), designating the parcel an IPP, and City Code Section 34-1, adding to the parcel the overlay of a Minor Architectural Design Control District. Designation of an IPP follows the process for an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance and zoning map, including a public hearing and notification. In reviewing the requested designation, City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) regarding criteria found in City Code Section 34-274. The church, parish hall, and rectory were originally constructed elsewhere and relocated to this site in--or soon after--1939 by the congregation of Trinity Episcopal Church. The church, built in 1910 in Palmyra (Fluvanna County), was disassembled and moved to 10th Street in 1939. According 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 1 Page 84 of 125 to church history, either in 1939 or very soon after, the parish hall and rectory were either moved to 10th Street from other locations or constructed new; however, their origins and dates of construction are uncertain. (Between 1919 and 1939, Trinity was located at what is now a pocket park at intersection of West High Street and Preston Avenue. The acquisition of land for Lane High School and McIntire Road forced the congregation’s move to 10 th Street, leaving behind a church and, possibly, a separate dwelling, which were razed. In 1974, the congregation moved from 10th Street to its present location at 1118 Preston Avenue.) Vicinity Map: Context Map 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 2 Page 85 of 125 Standard of Review – IPP Designation Sec. 34-274. - Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. a) City council may, by ordinance, from time to time, designate additional properties and areas for inclusion within a major design control district; remove properties from a major design control district; designate individual buildings, structures or landmarks as protected properties; or remove individual buildings, structure or landmarks from the city's list of protected properties. Any such action shall be undertaken following the rules and procedures applicable to the adoption of amendments to the city's zoning ordinance and zoning map. b) Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the city council shall consider the recommendations of the planning commission and the board of architectural review ("BAR") as to the proposed addition, removal or designation. The commission and BAR shall address the following criteria in making their recommendations: [listed below with staff comments inserted] (1) The historic, architectural or cultural significance, if any, of a building, structure or site and whether it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Virginia Landmarks Register (VLR); Staff Comment: The property is not currently listed on the NRHP or the VLR. In 2020, the City completed an architectural and historical survey of 434 properties within the 10th and Page Neighborhood, which included 415/415-B 10th Street NW and the three structures on the property. The review board of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources recommended the 10th and Page Neighborhood Historic District be eligible for listing on the VLR and NRHP, with Trinity’s former church, parish hall, and rectory identified as contributing resources; however, the buildings were not recommended for individual listing at that time. The church and parish hall are significant for their wood- frame vernacular Gothic architecture as well as for the role Trinity Episcopal Church’s members played in the Charlottesville community in the twentieth century, especially during the City’s local civil rights movement. (2) The association of the building, structure or site with an historic person or event or with a renowned architect or master craftsman; 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 3 Page 86 of 125 Staff Comment: The property contains three structures, but only the history of the church building is clearly known. The building was built in 1910 in Palmyra, Fluvanna County, and was designed by C. Chastain Cocke. Preliminary research identifies Cocke as a contractor and bridge builder in Fluvanna County, but neither his architecture or other buildings are renowned or prominent. The property is associated with those twentieth-century leaders of the City’s African- American community who attended Trinity Episcopal Church and the church itself made significant strides to unite and empower Black Charlottesville residents during the City’s era of segregation. Rev. Cornelius Dawson, Rev. Henry Mitchell, and George Ferguson were part of the Trinity Church community and all distinguished leaders in Charlottesville’s civil rights movement. Rev. Dawson led Trinity Episcopal Church between 1936 and 1946 and assisted local nurse Daisy Green in founding the Janie Porter Barrett Nursery School, a preschool that first served African-American families and remains Virginia’s longest-operating daycare. Rev. Mitchell helmed the church between 1958 and 1977 and launched the Trinity Program in 1964, which provided Black children with summer camp activities as well as year-round preschool services. Rev. Mitchell was also the first Black president of the Charlottesville school board. George Ferguson was an active congregant at the church and a prominent Black undertaker in Charlottesville. Ferguson led the Charlottesville NAACP as president and campaigned to integrate the University of Virginia hospital. Given Trinity Church’s ties with these three significant leaders and the services that the church itself sponsored, like the Trinity Program, to serve Charlottesville’s Black community during the twentieth century, the three buildings are significant for their association with historic people and events. (3) The overall aesthetic quality of the building, structure or site and whether it is or would be an integral part of an existing design control district; Staff Comment: The three buildings are striking and attractive framed structures that are significantly visible at the busy intersection of 10th Street NW and Preston and Grady avenues. The church building is the most prominent of the three buildings. The wood-frame vernacular Gothic building is articulated with a steep front-end gable roof and inset pointed-arch bargeboard that creates a recess framing a circular window and the front entrance beneath. The building is further complemented by pointed-arch windows that illuminate the sanctuary. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 4 Page 87 of 125 The former parish hall and rectory, are architecturally simpler than the church building. The parish hall is a one-story gable-roofed wood building with two-over-two sash windows and asbestos siding. The rectory resembles many other early twentieth- century dwellings in Charlottesville: it is a two-story wood house with a front-facing gable roof, one-over-one sash windows, and a gable-roofed front porch. Even though the church possesses more striking visual qualities than the parish hall or rectory, all three buildings complement each other and together are still clearly legible as a mid-twentieth-century church campus. The property is not within an existing City-designated Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. It is ¼-mile east of the Rugby Road-University Circle-Venable Neighborhood ADC District; 1/3-mile north of the Wertland Street and West Main ADC Districts; and within a few blocks of three IPPs. (4) The age and condition of a building or structure; Staff Comment: Only construction date of the church is confidently known: 1910 in Palmyra, VA, then disassembled and moved in 1939. The parish hall and rectory were reportedly relocated from other sites, though possibly constructed as new buildings at 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 5 Page 88 of 125 the present site. A 1937 aerial image (below) of the site suggests that neither building was present at least two years prior to the church being relocated here in in 1939. All three buildings have existed at the present site for 83 years. The present owner recently conducted exterior repairs to the church and parish hall. The buildings are in good to fair condition. (During the July 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the owner’s representative commented that in 2020 the following had been completed on the church and parish hall: misc. repairs and panting of exterior; reglaze the windows; update the MEP systems and equipment; alterations for ADA accessibility; repairs to a foundation wall; and expose the rafters within the parish hall.) 1937 aerial image of site. Parcel highlighted in orange. No buildings present. (https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/) (5) Whether a building or structure is of old or distinctive design, texture and material; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed on the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. This vernacular Gothic style is conveyed through the pointed-arch bargeboard in the front gable, the circular window on its façade, and the pointed-arch windows on all elevations. Its wood construction is also uncommon for church buildings in the city. (6) The degree to which the distinguishing character, qualities or materials of a building, structure or site have been retained; Staff Comment: The vernacular Gothic architectural language employed at the church is relatively uncommon in the city and distinguishes the church from other buildings in Charlottesville. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 6 Page 89 of 125 The completeness of the church campus is also a distinguishing quality of the site; together, the church building, parish hall, and rectory all served essential purposes for a functioning church in the twentieth century. All three buildings were critical to Trinity Episcopal Church operations and together, still contribute to the site’s historic character. (7) Whether a building or structure, or any of its features, represents an infrequent or the first or last remaining example of a particular detail or type of architecture in the city; Staff Comment: The church and parish hall are rare surviving examples of wood church buildings within Charlottesville city limits. Most of the City’s surviving churches built before 1960 are masonry (brick or concrete block). Of the City’s landmark church buildings that are historically associated with Charlottesville’s African-American community, most are masonry: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, constructed 1947). Within the City, staff identified only two other surviving wood churches built before 1960: the Woolen Mills Chapel (1819 E. Market Street, constructed 1887) and the former Bethel Baptist Church building (501 Commerce Street, constructed 1920). Given the rarity of wood churches in Charlottesville, the church and parish hall at 415 10th Street merit protection. From the 2020 survey: This site has been the location of a neighborhood religious organization for over fifty years. The architecture of both the dwelling and the church building complex is one of the few intact examples of a mid-20th century African American religious landscape in Charlottesville. While, some of the original fabric has been altered on the parish house and the church annex, the chapel remains intact. The value of Trinity Episcopal lies in its role as a community gathering place and house of worship serving the 10th and Page neighborhood and the larger city of Charlottesville. (8) Whether a building or structure is part of a geographically definable area within which there exists a significant concentration or continuity of buildings or structures that are linked by past events or, aesthetically, by plan or physical development, or within which there exist a number of buildings or structures separated geographically but linked by association or history. Staff Comment: The buildings lie at the NE corner of the historically working-class, predominately African American neighborhood known as 10th and Page. The church was culturally and historically an integral part of that neighborhood, more so than representing an aesthetic or architectural relationship to the neighborhood. The property is also linked to other landmark church buildings historically associated with Charlottesville’s Black community. Of these, three are within City-designated Architectural 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 7 Page 90 of 125 Design Control Districts and one is designated an Individually Protected Property: Mt. Zion Baptist Church (105 Ridge Street, constructed 1884), First Baptist Church [also Delevan Baptist Church] (632 West Main Street, constructed 1877), Ebenezer Baptist Church (113 6th Street NW, constructed 1894, rebuilt 1907), and Church of God in Christ (132 Rosser Avenue East, IPP, constructed 1947). Standard of Review – Rezoning The Planning Commission must make an advisory recommendation to the City Council. Council may amend the zoning district classification of this property upon finding that the proposed amendment would serve the interests of “public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice.” To advise Council, the Planning should evaluate: 1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; Staff Comment: The IPP designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. From Chapter 4 - Land Use, Urban Form, And Historic & Cultural Preservation: • Goal 3. Balance Conservation and Preservation With Change: Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community. • Goal 6. Design Excellence: Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining traditional urban design features and valuing historic resources while encouraging creative, context-sensitive, contemporary planning and design that supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. • Goal 8. Expand Understanding and Recognition Of Community History And Culture: Identify ways to expand the understanding, presentation, and interpretation of the varied histories, cultures, and experiences of the city’s residents and neighborhoods. • Goal 11. Historic Resource Protection: Provide effective protection of Charlottesville’s historic resources, including through recognition and incentives. o Strategy 11.1 Preserve historic resources through education and collaboration focused on maintaining our neighborhoods’ core historic fabric (while encouraging reuse of structures), our major routes of tourism, and our public spaces. o Strategy 11.2 When appropriate, consider neighborhoods or areas for designation as local historic districts (either Architectural Design Control Districts or Historic Conservation Districts), and consider Individually Protected Property designations, based on architectural and historic survey results. 2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 8 Page 91 of 125 Staff Comment: No longer used by an active congregation—though that is permitted by the requested B-2 zoning—the former Trinity Episcopal Church is an important cultural and historical landmark for the City and especially for the surrounding neighborhoods. During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, Trinity’s clergy and congregation were leaders in the City’s Civil Rights movement. Historically, this parcel anchored the NE corner of the 10th and Page Neighborhood, where the residential character transitioned to commercial/industrial employment center along Preston Avenue, such as the City Laundry, Monticello Dairy, and several automobile service businesses. 3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and Staff Comment: IPP designation is an overlay and will not impact the underlying zoning or the uses allowed by it. BAR approval is required for certain demolition, new construction, and alterations associated with an IPP, thus the designation is reasonable and appropriate as a method to further protect the character and integrity of this property. 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. Staff Comment: IPP designation is an overlay and will not impact the underlying zoning or the uses allowed by it. Public Comments Received: Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) and the Community Engagement meeting Requirements during the COVID -19 Emergency approved by City Council on July 20, 2020 On April 27, 2022 the applicant held a community meeting at the Brick Cellar inside Dairy Market at 946 Grady Avenue at 6:00 pm. Ten members of the public attended the meeting. The meeting was recorded and is available to the public through the developer. Several members of the public stated their preference that the owner seek historic designation of the Subject Property to ensure the building on the site would remain. On June 10, 2022 the City’s Historic Resources Committee sent to the Planning Commission and City Council a letter requesting they “initiate the process necessary to establish 415 10th Street, NW, as a locally designated historic property, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures.” Note: At its July 19, 2022 meeting the City’s Board of Architectural review will the proposed IPP and make a recommendation to Council, per Sec. 34-274. Additions to and deletions from districts or protected property list. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 9 Page 92 of 125 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should recommend, based on the criteria found in Section 34-274, that it is appropriate for Council to amend Code Sec. 34-273 the add this parcel to the list of IPPs and to amend the Zoning Map to designate this parcel as an IPP, with the church, parish hall, and rectory as contributing structures. Suggested Motions: 1. “I move to recommend that City Council approve ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22-00001 amending and reenacting the Zoning Map incorporated within Section 34-1 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990, as amended, by the rezoning of 415/415-B 10th Street NW (Parcel 4-46) to add a historic overlay district designation to the property, and also amending and reenacting Section 34-273 of the Charlottesville City Code, 1990 as amended, to add this property to the City’s list of Individually Protected Properties. Or 2. “I move to recommend that City Council deny the petitions (ZT-22-00001 and ZM-22- 00001) to rezone this property as an Individually Protected Property.” Attachments: 1. Zoning text amendment ZT22-00001 – Proposed language 2. City’s 1981 Historical Survey of 415 10th Street NW. 3. VDHR VCRIS documentation from the 2020 survey. 4. Photos and maps. Other citations for additional reference: • Trinity Episcopal Church: Our History. https://trinityepiscopalcville.org/about-us/our-history/ • 106 Group, April 2020. [VDHR] Preliminary Information Form for 10th and Page Historic District. • 106 Group, June 2020. Reconnaissance Architectural History Survey Of The 10th And Page Neighborhood: Charlottesville, Virginia. • Brennan, Eryn, 2012. Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 10 Page 93 of 125 Attachment 1 Sec. 34-273. - Individually protected properties. […] (b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city's major design control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or architectural value (each, individually, a "Protected Property"). Each parcel containing a protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district. […] 71.1 414/415-B Tenth [10th] Street, NW Tax Map 4 Parcel 46 Note: The number 71.1 is used to maintain the alphabetical order of the IPP list. 415 10th IPP – ZT and ZM (June 29, 2022) 11 Page 94 of 125 Page 95 of 125 Page 96 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 97 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 98 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 99 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 100 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 101 of 125 415 10th Street, NW (2019/2020 survey) Page 102 of 125 Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 1 of 5 1920 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street City GIS 1920 Sanborn Map Note: This is the location of the congregation in 1920. This building was reportedly razed after the congregation relocated to 10th Street. Page 103 of 125 Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 2 of 5 c1937 location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ 1937 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ City GIS Page 104 of 125 Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 5 1957 former location of Trinity Episcopal Church: 213 W. High Street 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Images not at same scale 1957 location of Trinity Episcopal Church on 10th Street, NW 1957 https://geoportal.lib.virginia.edu/UVAImageDiscovery/ Page 105 of 125 Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 4 of 5 1920 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave 1920 Sanborn Map 10th St NW Page 106 of 125 Attachment 4: Photos and maps for 415 10th St NW IPP - July 12, 2022 Page 5 of 5 c1960 Sanborn Map at 10th Street and Grady Avenue Grady Ave City GIS (current) 10th Street Grady Ave c1960 Sanborn Map 10th St NW Page 107 of 125 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 34 (ZONING), ARTICLE II (OVERLAY DISTRICTS), DIVISION 2 (HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONTROL OVERLAY DISTRICTS, TO DESIGNATE TAX MAP 4 PARCEL 46 (414 AND 415-B TENTH STREET, N.W.) AS AN INDIVIDUALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY AND MINOR DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS during a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on June 14, 2022, the owner of the property at 415/415-B 10th Street NW expressed consent for the City to research and pursue individually protected property designation of the property; and WHEREAS on July 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the factors set forth within Sec. 34-274 of the City Code and recommended the designation of property identified on City Tax Map 4 as Parcel 46 (415 and 415-B 10th Street N.W.) (the "Subject Property") to the City’s list of individually protected properties set forth within Sec. 34- 273(b) of the Charlottesville City Code (together, the "Proposed Text and Map Amendment"); and WHEREAS a public hearing on the Proposed Text and Map Amendment was conducted jointly by City Council and Planning Commission on July 12, 2022, following notice to the public, to the property owner, and adjacent property owners, as required by law; and WHEREAS on July 12, 2022 the Planning Commission voted to recommend the Proposed Text and Map Amendment to City Council for adoption; and WHEREAS on July 19, 2022, at a regular meeting and following notice to the public, to the property owner, and adjacent property owners as required by law, the Board of Architectural Review voted to recommend the Proposed Text and Map Amendment; and WHEREAS upon consideration of the goals and criteria set forth within Sections 34- 273 and 34-274 of the City Code, the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review, and the information and analysis set forth within the Staff Report submitted to City Council for this proposed designation, City Council finds and determines that the Subject Property is suitable and appropriate to be individually protected and that the Proposed Text and Map Amendment is required by the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, Page 108 of 125 BE IT ORDAINED by the Council for the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended, Chapter 34 (Zoning), Article II (Overlay Districts), Division 2 (Historical Preservation and Architectural Design Control Overlay Districts) is hereby amended and reordained, as follows: Sec. 34-273. Individually protected properties. (a) […] (b) Following is a list of landmarks, buildings and structures outside the city's major design control districts, which are deemed by city council to be of special historic, cultural, or architectural value (each, individually, a "Protected Property"). Each parcel containing a protected property is hereby designated a minor design control district. [.…] [.…] [….] [….] [….] 69.1. 104 Stadium Road Tax Map 16 Parcel 2 70. 214 Stribling Avenue Tax Map Parcel 33 18A 71. 134 Tenth Street, N.W. Tax Map 31 Parcel 56 71.1* 414 and Tenth Street, N.W. Tax Map 4 Parcel 46 415-B 72. 309 Twelfth Street, NE Tax Map 54 Parcel 211 [*Note: The number 71.1 is used to maintain the alphabetical order of the list.] BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Zoning Map is hereby amended to apply an overlay district designation to Tax Map Parcel 46 (414 and 415-B Tenth Street, N.S.) as a minor design control district, as specified by the provisions of City Code §34-273(b). Page 109 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: Council Approval Presenter: Christine Jacobs Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), Ryan Michkles Regional Planner III TJPDC Staff Contacts: Sandy Shackelford Director of Planning & Transportation TJPDC Chuck Protor Culpeper District Planning Manager Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Jeanette Janiczek, UCI Program Manager Title: Resolution of Support for four (4) TJPDC / MPO Grant Applications (1 reading) Background Virginia’s SMART SCALE (§33.2-214.1) is a grant process where transportation projects are scored and funded based on an objective, outcome-based process that is transparent to the public. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) continues to refine the process in each round, with this being the fifth round. Eligible projects include newly constructed facilities that increase capacity, provide safety elements or improve operations for vehicles, transit, bicyclists and/or pedestrians. Project applications must also meet an identified need in the Commonwealth’s long-range transportation plan – VTrans2040 - under one or more of the following categories: • Corridors of Statewide Significance (CoSS) – certain key multimodal corridors • Regional Networks – certain multimodal networks that serve urbanized or intraregional travel areas • Urban Development Areas (UDA) – areas of identified concentrated growth and development • Transportation Safety Needs – Statewide safety needs identified in VTrans2040 Each project in the Culpeper District is scored by six (6) factors and their weighted basis: • Safety – 20% • Congestion Mitigation – 15% • Accessibility – 25% • Environmental Quality – 10% • Economic Development – 20% • Land Use – 10% Once a project is scored, that score is divided by its submitted budget/estimate to create its final Page 110 of 125 ranking/funding priority. Even if a project has many benefits, if the cost of implementation is too high, it will receive a low final ranking/ funding priority. One method of improving a project’s score is to commit additional funding to lower the amount of funding being sought, or cost of the project for the SmartScale application. Next Steps: VDOT will evaluate all applications received and will issue a Recommended Funding Scenario for projects to receive funding in January 2023. From February to April 2023, public meetings will be held to discuss Funding Scenario to inform the Commonwealth Transportation Board's adoption of the Six Year Improvement Plan (SYIP) which finalized awards to projects in the Funding Scenario in June 2023. Discussion The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Organization (CA-MPO) and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) have the opportunity to submit Smart Scale applications in addition to the applications submitted by localities. The projects addressed herein are competing for VDOT’s High-Priority Projects funds against projects across the state due to the estimated benefits in providing capacity on a Corridor of Statewide Significance and regional network. These four grant applications would not be competing against the City’s grant applications. Letters of Resolution have been provided for these three grant applications by the Charlottesville- Albemarle MPO as well as County of Albemarle and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Since these grant applications impact land located within the City, a Resolution of Support is being sought from the Charlottesville City Council tonight on all three projects. The following projects were identified as critical needs in previous planning documents (Hydraulic Small Area Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan 2045, Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan). Each project has been evaluated to ensure it meets Smart Scale eligibility as well as address the 6 scoring factors. 1) Avon Street Multimodal Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate (with contingency) $9.4 million Application Project Manager Ryan Mickles, TJPDC Scope – This project includes multiple elements to improve safety and mobility. The project will develop a package of multimodal transportation improvements along Avon Street between Druid Avenue and Fifth Street Station Parkway. Improvements include bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and roadway widening on the west side of Avon Street among other improvements. Current Plan Development Status and Public Engagement –A public webinar was held in February 2022 to obtain feedback from the community. Additional Details– Improvements were identified in the Avon Street Corridor Study. Page 111 of 125 2) District Avenue (at Hydraulic Road) Roundabout Preliminary Cost Estimate (with contingency) $10.3 million Application Project Manager Ryan Mickles, TJPDC Scope – The project will improve vehicular movement at the intersection with Hydraulic Road/Cedar Hill Road, along with the provision of bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility accommodations. Current Plan Development Status and Public Engagement – A public webinar was held in February 2022 to obtain feedback from the community. Additional Details–The city is working with VDOT on how to best accommodate the residents of the Cedar Hill neighborhood regarding access and mitigating residential impacts. 3) Fifth Street Multimodal Improvements Preliminary Cost Estimate (with contingency) $9.4 million Application Project Manager Ryan Mickles, TJPDC Scope – The project will address capacity issues along a major local roadway between Harris Road and the Moores Creek Trail, facilitate vehicular movement and help provide for accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians. Current Plan Development Status and Public Engagement – A public webinar was held in February 2022 to obtain feedback from the community. Additional Details– Improvements were identified in the Fifth Street Corridor Study. 4) Rivanna River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Preliminary Cost Estimate (with contingency) $34.2 million Application Project Manager Sandy Shackelford, TJPDC Scope – This project improves bicycle and pedestrian bridge access across the Rivanna River at East Market Street in Woolen Mills, connecting two important development areas on either side of the river. An additional shared use path will be constructed from the eastern landing site in Pantops to connect the bridge to the transportation network at the intersection of Peter Jefferson Parkway and State Farm Boulevard. Current Plan Development Status and Public Engagement – A public webinar was held in February 2022 to obtain feedback from the community. Public comments have been recorded and filed at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (Charlottesville-Abemarle MPO). Additional Details – In May 2022, VDOT provided the MPO with a bridge design concept/rendering that would reduce the final cost once determined. Page 112 of 125 Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan Approval of these agenda items upholds the City’s commitment to create “a green city", “America’s healthiest city", and “a connected community” by expanding sustainable and healthy transportation options and improving regional transportation efficiency. Furthermore, these projects expand transportation options that will be available to residents “of all ages and incomes". Community Engagement Provided in the Discussion Section for each project proposal. Budgetary Impact No funding is requested from the City of Charlottesville for these projects. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolutions of Support for the 4 projects Suggested Motion: "I move the RESOLUTION endorsing the submission of Smart Scale (House Bill 2) Applications Requesting transportation funding by the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization" Alternatives 1. Avon Street Multimodal Improvements 2. District Avenue (at Hydraulic Road) Roundabout 3. Fifth Street Multimodal Improvements 4. Rivanna River Bycycle and Pedestrian Bridge Crossing Remove one or all of the projects from the Resolutions of Support so that support from the City of Charlottesville would not be included with the grant applications, which may impact the ability of the project(s) to receive funding. Attachments 1. RESOLUTION ENDORSING MPO _ TJPDC SMART SCALE SUBMISSIONS 2. 2022-07-2 0 CAT Support Letter 3. Visuals_MPO project as of 07-13-2022 Proposed Concepts Page 113 of 125 RESOLUTION Endorsing the Submission of Smart Scale (HB2) Applications Requesting Transportation Funding by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization WHEREAS the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) completed a comprehensive Long Range Transportation Plan (“2045 LRTP”) in May 2019; and WHEREAS the 2045 LRTP includes certain transportation improvements described within this resolution; and WHEREAS the Hydraulic Small Area Plan was adopted as an amendment to the Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan on May 7, 2018; and WHEREAS the MPO Policy Board has identified transportation projects which are critical to improve safe and efficient movement of people and goods along public roadways in the Charlottesville- Albemarle Metropolitan area; and WHEREAS during its 2014 session, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation in the form of House Bill 2 (“HB2”) which established new criteria for the allocation of transportation funding for projects within the state (“Smart Scale”); and WHEREAS the Commonwealth Transportation Board, during its board meeting on June 17, 2015, approved the Policy and Guidelines for Implementation of a Project Prioritization Process in accordance with Smart Scale; and WHEREAS many of the transportation projects identified by the MPO meet the eligibility criteria for Smart Scale funding; and WHEREAS it is in the best interests of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Transportation Planning Area that the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the MPO should submit Smart Scale applications requesting state funding for eligible transportation projects; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the Council fully endorses the submission of a Smart Scale application by the MPO to the Commonwealth to seek funding for the following transportation projects: Projects within the City of Charlottesville: 1. Avon Street Multimodal Improvements 2. District Avenue (at Hydraulic Road) Roundabout 3. Fifth Street Multimodal Improvements 4. Rivanna River Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Crossing ADOPTED the ________ day of ___________, 2022 by the Charlottesville City Council ATTEST: Kyna Thomas, Council Clerk Page 114 of 125 Page 115 of 125 Page 116 of 125 Page 117 of 125 Page 118 of 125 Page 119 of 125 Page 120 of 125 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Agenda Date: August 1, 2022 Action Required: For review Presenter: Daman Irby Staff Contacts: Maxicelia Robinson, Deputy Clerk of Council Kyna Thomas, Clerk of Council Title: Sister Cities Commission Annual Report (written report only) Background The Charlottesville Sister Cities Commission was established on June 19, 2006, to provide leadership on international outreach programs with partner cities. The purpose of a sister city is to promote understanding and foster relationships among individuals, communities, and cities of the world through cultural, economic, educational and humanitarian activities. Discussion According to its Bylaws, the Sister Cities Commission is responsible for filing an annual report of activities and finances with the Clerk of Council at the conclusion of the fiscal year. Alignment with City Council's Vision and Strategic Plan The Sister Cities Commission actively contributes to the Vision for Economic Sustainability, C'Ville Arts and Culture, and A Center for Lifelong Learning. Community Engagement Citizen engagement is a major part of the Sister Cities grants program and the CSCC plans to expand community engagement through showcasing completed grants projects. Budgetary Impact The Sister Cities Commission has traditionally received an allotment of $15,000 annually to carry out programs. During several recent budget cycles, the annual allotment was not granted. The Sister Cities Commission budget request for $30,000 during the FY23 budget cycle was approved. Recommendation The Sister Cities Commission looks forward to continued support from City Council. Page 121 of 125 Alternatives This is a report only. Attachments 1. CSCC Annual Report FY21-22 Report 7-20-22 Page 122 of 125 Charlottesville City Council City of Charlottesville PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Report: FY 2021/2022 Activities of the Charlottesville Sister Cities Commission To The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Charlottesville: The 2021/2022 fiscal year for the Charlottesville Sister Cities Commission proved to be a positive return from the COVID nadir. The Commission’s grant programs resumed their activities, engagement both virtual and in-person returned, and relationships between the citizens of Charlottesville and those of Besancon, Huehuetenango, Poggio a Caiano, and Winneba developed. The following are highlights of the year related to each of the Sister/Friendship Cities along with the Commission’s general organization. BESANCON: The year began with the hope of renewing in-person exchanges which has long been a cornerstone of the Besancon/Charlottesville relationship. It was ultimately determined to not yet be possible to due to the COVID situation and Charlottesville City Schools’ continued moratorium on international exchanges. A special effort this year was made to reestablish a strong Sister City relationship due to COVID strain and changes within the government in Besancon. CSCC Besancon Representative Elizabeth Smiley began making plans for travel to Besancon to reestablish these bonds. However, former Charlottesville City Council Member Kristin Szakos informed the CSCC of a trip she planned to make to the city. She ultimately met with newly elected Besancon city officials and was effective in promoting the importance of the relationship. Ms. Smiley chose not to travel during this fiscal year considering Ms. Szakos’ successful visit. Ms. Smiley received visiting officials from the University of Franche-Comte, provided them a tour of Charlottesville including the University of Virginia, Monticello, and other sites and provided small gifts to return for Besancon officials. HUEHUETENANGO: The CSCC opened the year with a Zoom meeting between city officials and those involved in the Sister City program in Huehuetenango which was the first time direct communication occurred between the groups. A positive rapport was established which has proven important to the further establishment of the Friendship status. Mountainside Arts which won a CSCC grant exhibited artwork through portraiture and creative expression from the children of each city at the Northside Library throughout the month of October. Another grant connected to Huehuetenango with the purpose of building closer ties was with the Ixtatan Foundation to assist in establishing stable Page 123 of 125 internet connectivity and a website. This effort in association with Code for Charlottesville helped further establish cultural, economic, and civic ties between the cities and provide member of the public with free WiFi access. POGGIO A CAIANO: Poggio representative Stella Mattioli worked diligently to reestablish Sister City activities through personal visits to the city and the furthering of programmatic engagement. She made a point of connecting with newly elected public officials and members of the local school district. A 2020 grant named “Storie Musicali” was completed with a trip in March 2022 by Charlottesville citizens Wes Swing and Kelley Libby. Swing and Kelley recorded sounds, music, and images of both Poggio and Charlottesville and ultimately created a YouTube event called Poggio a Caiano- Charlottesville: Sister Cities in Stereo. A new grant was won this year by local student Henry Pollard which focuses on creating a website with photos of how young people in both cities lived during the pandemic. This project is currently in development. Plans are in progress to bring the winners of a public Poggio music contest to Charlottesville for a performance. WINNEBA Sister City activities with Winneba, Ghana, continued engaging citizens of both cities. Commission representatives Nana Ghartey and David Norris led two delegations of Charlottesville citizens, six in December 2021 and 26 citizens on a trip in May 2022, to meet with public officials and learn of the culture and historical relevance of the city. As a part of program, the CSCC provided the opportunity for citizens to apply for financial assistance to assure that the opportunity was not strictly for those with a higher level of financial means. This program successful continued the rich engagement between the citizens of each city. The CSCC joined in the effort to provide a functioning but no longer used Charlottesville firetruck to Winneba to help further safeguard the city and strengthen bonds. A representative from the Charlottesville Fire Department participated in the May trip to Winneba to join in ceremonies and activities between the cities. Charlottesville and Winneba maintain a close relationship due to the efforts of the commission members and a close relationship with the Charlottesville- Winneba Foundation. OTHER ACTIVITIES: The CSCC worked on other activities during the year which focused on multiple Sister Cities or the Sister City program in general. Sister Cities International hosts the Young Artist and Authors Competition each year which is meant to engage students from Sister Cities globally to join in sharing each other’s cities and cultures. The CSCC participated in this program for the first time in 2021 by partnering with Charlottesville City Schools to recruit participants. CSCC Youth Representative Vivien Wong is leading the 2022 efforts to continue the growth of Charlottesville participation in this activity. In a separate effort through CSCC grant funding, The Bridge art gallery completed the “Face to Face International” art exhibit which featured the work of eight local artists who created portraits through a variety of mediums of citizens from each of the Sister Cities. These works were on display at The Bridge prior to their return to the people who were depicted. Following an extended period of significantly reduced activity due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the 2021/2022 fiscal year was dedicated by the CSCC to the restoration of relationships and activities between Charlottesville and its Sister Cities. Each of the 2 Page 124 of 125 established Sister Cities during the COVID period experienced turnover in their local governments which provided additional impetus for renewing relationships among the cities. The CSCC continues to be in the process of returning to the level of activity it experienced prior to the pandemic. An important part of this was with reestablishment of funding provided by the Charlottesville City Council for which the CSCC representatives are most grateful. That funding will provide the opportunity to further strengthen the relationships between citizens of Charlottesville with those in our Sister Cities. With sincere regards, Daman Irby Chairman, Charlottesville Sister Cities Commission 3 Page 125 of 125