Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, January 9, 2018 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes - November 14, 2017 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes - December 12, 2017 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 3. Site Plan – Carlton Views II III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. Charlottesville Capital Improvement Program FY 2019-2023: Consideration of the proposed 5- year Capital Improvement Program totaling $114,227,860 in the areas of Education, Economic Development, Public Safety & Justice, Facilities Management, Transportation & Access, Parks & Recreation, Technology Infrastructure, Stormwater Initiatives and General Government Infrastructure. A copy of the proposed CIP is available for review at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-a-g/budget-and-performance- management/fy-2019-budget-development Report prepared by Ryan Davidson, Office of Budget and Performance Management. IV. PRESENTATION Beginning: upon conclusion of all joint public hearings 1. Charlottesville Schools Enrollment http://charlottesvilleschools.org/facilities/ V. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Site Plan – 1011 East Jefferson Street Site Plan VI. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, January 23, 2018 – 5:00 PM Work Session Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, February 13, 2018 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, February 13, 2018 – 5:30 PM Regular Special Permit – 0 Carlton Meeting Rezoning – 0 Monticello Road Minutes – November 28, 2017 - Work Session Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Site Plan - 1233 Cedars Court, Sunrise Park PUD Phase IV Subdivision - Paynes Mill Entrance Corridor - 916, 920 East High Street, 325 10th Street NE (10th & High), ` Seminole Square shopping center Hydraulic/29 Small Area Plan – April 2018 SUP – 901 River Road Persons with Disabilities may request reasonable accommodations by contacting ada@charlottesville.org or (434)970-3182 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 12/1/2017 TO 12/31/2017 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 1317 Carlton Avenue – December 14, 2017 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 2020 & 2024 Spottswood Road (TMP 40 – 17&18) - November 21, 2017 b. BLA – Oaklawn Court (TMP 20 – 24&25) – December 22, 2017 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, November 14, 2017– 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. Commission Work Session (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Vice-Chair Corey Clayborne, Commissioners Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, Kurt Keesecker, and John Santoski. Members Absent: Taneia Dowell Chair Green called the meeting to order at 5pm. The Commission discussed the draft meeting procedures and determined that they would present and vote on them in the regular meeting. Clarification of the determination to be made on the Brandon Avenue request was provided. Commissioner Clayborne asked how hearings would be addressed this evening and it was noted that each item would be completed prior to moving to the next. Chair Green provided a potential timeline for the evening and it was determined that if Hydraulic/29 could be reviewed prior to the start of public hearings, that option would be explored. Commissioner Lahendro asked for clarification of the zoning text amendments on the agenda. Ms. Robertson provided that noting that she has a presentation which will compare the recommendations that have been provided. Commissioner Keller asked about the BZA item which may need input from the Planning Commission. Ms. Robertson explained the code provision and noted options which could occur. II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Vice-Chair Corey Clayborne, Commissioners Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, Kurt Keesecker, and John Santoski. Members Absent: Taneia Dowell Staff: Missy Creasy, Carolyn McCray, Lisa Robertson, Brian Haluska Council: Mike Signor, Bob Fenwick, Kathy Galvin, Wes Bellamy Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Green at 5:30 pm A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: reported he attended the Tree Commission meeting on October 3rd and there was considerable discussion concerning the preparation of the next fiscal year CIP request for tree maintenance and planting. Secondly, the tree planting project plan for Westhaven is to plant 37 canopy trees. The Tree Commission and the Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards will hold demonstration projects for the residents, and we reviewed the proposed tree planting list for this fall. There will be 129 trees planted and 30% of them are to replace dead or dying trees. This coming weekend the Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards and other volunteers will be planting 30 trees at Penn Park. Lastly, the Virginia Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects presented an award to the Timmons Group for a guide commissioned by Charlottesville Public Works entitled “Strategies and Recommendations for street trees and sidewalks.” 1 Commissioner Keller: reported she attended TJPDC and they accepted the report from the auditors. She said we had a very good year and had an unqualified report which is the best report you can get. We issued a resolution and our staff sent a letter in opposition to the increase in admission fees to the natural parks because of the potential adverse effect on economic development and tourism in our region. She also attended the PLACE Design Task Force meeting and a very informative presentation was given by Tim Martin the former director of Community Engagement for the City of Roanoke. He particularly was talking about their social media and how they organized social media into their City Government. It was a very good model and very informative. TJPDC and DCR will be hosting a one-day workshop on floodplain management on December 12th 9:00am to 5:00pm. The workshop is an opportunity to meet DCR staff and receive training related to floodplain management requirements. Please see the attached flyer for additional information. Commissioner Clayborne: reported he attended the Board of Architectural Review meeting on October 17th and as usual he likes to highlight a project that might be of interest to citizens and the board. He said as development continues on West Main Street, the Quirk Hotel gave a presentation which was an interesting use of adapting the reuse of a couple of existing buildings combined with new construction. There is a restaurant component that would bring a sense of vibrancy to that area of West Main Street, so overall it was a good meeting. Commissioner Santoski: reported he attended the Parks and Recreation meeting. He also attended the MPO Tech meeting and they talked about the revisions that the state has made on how to submit under the new Smart Scale program. A lot of the talk was also about the proposed plans that are coming forward from Albemarle County under Smart Scale and a few things about West Main Street were mentioned by the City as being a priority for Smart Scale. It was also mentioned how the time lines will have to move very quickly through their process. We also talked about universal freight where there is money you can designate to certain parts of highways that have not already been designated that carry freight around the state. The MPO is looking at designating between mile marker 99 and mile marker 130, because they can do 88.5 miles designated as this freight, so they are trying to do the whole length of I-64. Someone else will do the rural part of it from Route 81 to Afton and somebody else will do it from Zion Crossroads down to Gum Springs. He said it is fascinating because there are so many different avenues of looking at transportation in addition to what we normally see come through Smart Scale or other things that are constantly being looked at as to how to enhance transportation and moving people around the state. A lot of it is also multi-modal bike and pedestrian, all tying in together. Belmont Bridge steering committee will not be meeting until March or April of next year mainly because City Council has approved the Belmont Bridge; so at this point the next public meeting wouldn’t happen until we start to see designs coming in to us for approval. Should you need additional information please look online under Belmont Bridge. Commissioner Keesecker: reported he attended the Hydraulic/29 Steering Committee meeting and we will be looking at Hydraulic/29 later on tonight. It has been going really well and he compliments the work their team has done with the VDOT guys, it has been an enjoyable process. He attended an AIA conference in Richmond that Mr. Clayborne and his team help to organize. He went to every seminar that had to do with engagement, community space, public space, and the civic realm. He said there were about six different talks he was able to hear and each one made him more excited about the possibilities. B. UVA REPORT: Brian Hogg: no report C. CHAIR'S REPORT: Lisa Green: reported on the joint work session with City Council on October 26th. At that meeting we talked about the Planning Commission endorsing the low income housing coalition’s three concerns. The Low Income Housing Coalition would assist with the selection process for a consultant with the NDS staff. We talked about Form Based Code, updated timeline, a strategy how to use height bonuses versus density bonus 2 as proposed by Form Based Code, so that we can build more affordable units on site. If this works from a legal standpoint, maybe we would have to get some legislative changes. We also discussed how important it is to have a housing need assessment here in Charlottesville. We definitely have concerns about things we need to do better in our city where it relates to affordable housing and onsite affordable housing. I attended PLACE Design Task Force meeting and we had a great report from Tim Martin, from the City of Roanoke where he was the Director of Communication and he discussed how the City of Roanoke used Facebook, Twitter and different social media aspects to do outreach to the community and not necessarily just a small portion of the community but outreach where we are not always having the best outreach. We are always looking and trying to figure out better ways for community outreach so that we get the voices from everyone and not just the few that can afford to show up in the middle of the day or evening because some people work. Some of the things that they were doing that were also important were surveys on Facebook pages where people could give us feedback or input. She is hoping we do look into that because it was a great meeting and hopes it instilled a lot of insight in some people within our organization that we move forward with something like this. She has also been attending the CIP meeting every Tuesday getting ready to come before us in December. Ms. Creasy there has been a change, the CIP committee has asked for a little more time to get ready for the work session. Upcoming is a CTAC meeting tomorrow night at the Water Street. That is the Charlottesville Transportation Advisory Commission for any of you who would like to attend and be more engaged in the transportation plans for our MPO. The agenda for tomorrow night includes an initial discussion on the Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan. They also will be discussing a kick-off meeting time frame. The final draft of the I-64 corridor plan, the bike-ped plan regional update, the transit partnership update which is a ridership report and the long range transportation plan timeline. All of these materials can be found on the TJPDC website, TJPDC.org, under the MPO program. We have some formalized rules for public comments that we have been discussing as the Planning Commission body and we will go over those quickly and take a vote to adopt those. The rules were accepted and the motion passed. Commissioner Santoski move to accept the new rules; Seconded by Commissioner Clayborne, motion passes 6-0. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS: Missy Creasy: welcomed the members of Professor Brady’s land use class that are with us for the evening to observe the activities that occur in our meetings. The Commission has just set up a new series of work sessions to work through the comprehensive plan. We just got those posted, so we have work sessions on a number of days between now and December 11th. Generally, the November 28th and 29th are 5:00-7:00 pm, and Friday, December 1st and December 8th are from 11:00 – 1:00; December 11th 5:00 -7:00 pm. These are all posted in our conference room and they are all posted online. For November 28th we would typically be scheduled to have our presentation on the CIP and they requested to come to one of our later meetings and hold the hearing in January. They requested the December 11th and we can do an easy flip-flop because we can use the time on the 28th to focus on the Comprehensive Plan work and then edge the CIP work in there once they get to that point in December. Chair Green is on that committee and has been keeping us involved at this point and time, but if there is no concern from you guys she will let them know that they may come in for the first few minutes of the discussion. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Mark Kavit, 400 Altamont Street: said a week ago Councilor Kathy Galvin spoke on PUD’s concerning mainly MACAA but he thinks it is anything involving a PUD. He thought it would be good for y’all to read it and get familiar with it because she made some really good points. He passed out the presentation to all Planning Commission members. 1. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular Agenda) 3 1. Minutes - September 12, 2017 – Pre meeting and Regular meeting 2. Site Plan – 1530 E High Street 3. Entrance Corridor Review – 1530 E High Street Motioned by Commissioner Santoski to approve the Consent Agenda, Seconded by Commissioner Clayborne, motion passes 6-0. II. Hydraulic/29 Small Area Plan – request for plan Chair Green: said this is the same plan that we had at a joint work session with the County back in September and what is being asked of us is to endorse the plan in concept knowing that the transportation plan is still being worked on. They need our endorsement so that TJPDC can apply for Smart Scale funding and that is a time sensitive issue. Commissioner Keller: asked if there was a presentation. Commissioner Santoski: said we have had the discussion and presentation on this before on the Hydraulic/29 Small Area Plan and it is going to come back to us in early spring once it moves ahead but he thinks the endorsement part of it is important in order for the TJPDC and the MPO to move this ahead so they can put it in the queue as they move forward with the Smart Scale submission because of how tight that time frame is going to be. Commissioner Keller moved to endorse the concept plan for the Hydraulic/29 Small Area Plan seconded by Commissioner Keesecker motion passes 6-0. The plan will come forward as a resolution for adoption as an appendix to the 2013 Comprehensive Plan in the spring of 2018. III. Gavel into to entrance corridor Entrance Corridor Review Board 1. 916, 920 East High Street 2. 1801 Hydraulic Road (Old Kmart site) Hillsdale Place. Report by Mary Joy Scala: The design is generally appropriate, with the following recommended conditions of approval: 1. Additional articulation on the Hillsdale Road façade, preferably using more brick; 2. Signage requires separate permits. All signage shall appear to be lit white at night. 3. The L-7 fixture shall not be used to outline the building, unless the light source is fully concealed, and not mounted above 20 feet height. 4. All glass must be specified as clear, with minimum 70% visible light transmittance (VLT). 5. A pedestrian walkway shall be added along the main entry drive from the Hydraulic Road City sidewalk to the building plaza area, and a City sidewalk shall be added to the south side of India Road from Route 29 to the walkway on the west side of the building. 6. No dumpsters in site of Hillsdale 7. Bus shelter for the bus stop. Commissioner Clayborne: Is there a bus stop on the site? Chair Green: Yes I think there is a bus that goes to K-mart. We can ask the applicant. Commissioner Lahendro: asked Ms. Scala if the drawings we have are schematic at best. What level of deviation is allowed from these schematic drawings than the final drawings? Ms. Scala: asked do you mean in terms of dimensions or materials? 4 Commission Lahendro: said he is particularly interested in the Hillsdale road elevation. Hillsdale road is a new passageway through the shopping center and it should be treated like a road with engagement to encourage pedestrian travel, and he would hate to see this come back with a small amount of opening. What assurance do we have that that is not going to happen? Ms. Scala: said she always checks the building permit before it is issued to make sure it complies with what was approved for entrance corridor and if it varies a lot she would bring it back to you. Commissioner Santoski: asked how this may or may not be impacted by or this may or may not impact the Hydraulic/29 plan. Heather Newmyer: noted there have been discussions surrounding increased walkability in this area and enhanced access for bicyclists/pedestrians. She said staff recognizes this site will have two phases of development: the later phase to include the overall redevelopment of the site. The construction of Streets that Work will most likely make sense for the second phase of this site’s redevelopment. Coordination between the developer, the City and TJPDC will be required given the Hydraulic/29 ongoing planning process. Kevin Lyon, Lead Architect, gave a brief presentation on the design and key points: - Creating a better pedestrian experience. - Have some building mounts to add to the lighting. Dark sky will not be an issue. - Creating a focal point, typical 15 feet of sidewalk, green elements, special place. Ms. Scala: said she feels comfortable to approve it tonight. Commissioner Santoski: said the project looks good to him and he likes Mr. Lahendro’s idea of putting an entrance on this side of Hillsdale. The other side is probably going to get the most foot traffic considering that the hotels are right behind there on Hillsdale so most people would be walking into the shopping center coming down that walkway. Commissioner Lahendro: said it does comply with the guidelines under which we are reviewing this which is to improve the pedestrian experience around the building and create connections with the other parts of the site. He said an entrance on this side would greatly improve that. Commissioner Keller: said one of the things years ago when we reviewed Whole Foods on Brandywine Drive and some people scoffed at the time that nobody is going to walk, but she observed quite a bit of foot traffic there so she thinks the sidewalk addition is very good in keeping with the policy we have established for several years now. Chair Green: said just for clarity, we are voting on entrance corridor only for the existing building. All of the future out buildings are not part of this entrance corridor application. George Hasser, architect: said the additional entrance on Hillsdale drive is not feasible, and there are several reasons why that will not work. 1) Internal working at the store: that is where all of the shelves and dressing rooms are right behind where it says outdoors outfitters; it simply is not going to work in the plan. 2) The parking that is planned to service this entrance is all around the side in order to enhance pedestrian use from Hydraulic Road and also from the parking lot. We really want to channel customers through the main entrance and we don’t want them to go into a side entrance which is not going to have check outs or security; you would have to have signage within the entrance also. This is planned to be single tenant on this corner, multiple entrances will be very difficult for this tenant to handle. 5 Commissioner Keesecker: said when we were talking about the entrance on this façade was it the intention of the Commission to suggest that it had to go where the brown area was? We didn’t necessarily have a specified preference on where we thought it would open for the possibility in the future for some kind of change of use of the building that benefits from an entrance on this side of the building. Chair Green: said with everything we have been discussing with the Small Area Plan, this entire area which this is in large part about walkability and pedestrians. She said in her opinion, in order to vote yes on something that is auto-centric which is something that we have discussed is not something we wanted in this Small Area Plan. Commissioner Lahendro: said so under provision of the Entrance Corridor design guidelines, #3 says “encourage compact walkable developments, design pedestrian connections from sidewalks and car to buildings, between buildings, between corridor properties, and adjacent residential areas. He thinks we are losing that opportunity. Commissioner Keller: said she thinks we should carry on the same attitude that we have for downtown and West Main and other commercial areas that are more walkable now in particular for an establishment that is adjacent to a roadway. We want to have those entrances available, and how a tenant or owner chooses to use them, actually how they allow access or not, is outside of our purview. However, we want to do everything we can to encourage that walkability, for users to feel that it is comfortable and engaging so they will walk. Commissioner Keesecker: asked in the future to give Ms. Scala guidance and thoughts on the matter, if she were asked to judge the future permit drawings to this schematic design and the deviation was that one of the sills of one of those bays was where the door was, where the whole thing went down to the slab and a door found its way into one of those openings, would we consider that a major deviation that would not comply with what we are talking about in terms of our preference for an entrance on that façade. He said if it occurred within the glass opening that’s okay. Commissioner Clayborne: said he would encourage you to let the architect do pedestrian engagement in a different way than a door. He said that is the beauty of design; you can engage in design on Hillsdale Drive whether you have a door or not, let them do what they do. He said he would not consider this a reason to shut it down. Commissioner Keller: said could we have a motion tonight and ask that the Hillsdale portion come back for administrative review or come back here because they should be able to come back with this project. Commissioner Keller moved for approval with staff’s recommended conditions the Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness application for Hillsdale Place at 1801 Hydraulic Road Conditions include: 1. Dumpsters and utilities be screened from Hillsdale 2. Add a bus stop and shelter (to be reviewed administratively) 3. The Hillsdale Pedestrian Engagement is a pedestrian walkway to be added along the main entry drive from the Hydraulic Road City sidewalk to the building plaza area, and a City sidewalk shall be added to the south side of India Road from Route 29 to the walkway on the west side of the building; to come back for review either by staff or the Entrance Corridor Review Board; referencing the drawings dated 11.3.2017; Additional articulation on the Hillsdale Road façade, preferably using more brick; should come back for administrative review; Seconded by Commissioner Santoski, motion passes 6-0. 6 The Entrance Corridor Review Board approved an entrance corridor certificate for the building off Hydraulic Road. It will turn the old space into Hillsdale Place. The commercial project will have retail and restaurants. Chair Green: Gavel out of Entrance Corridor III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format:(i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing SP17-00005 – 604 Cynthianna Avenue (Pampered Pets) – EFB-JSB, Inc. representing Landowner Ronald Lee Rhodes has submitted a special use permit for an outdoor dog run at 604 Cynthianna Avenue. The permit would allow the applicant to operate a 2,220 square foot outdoor dog run on property located at 604 Cynthianna Avenue, adjacent to an existing dog run at 601 Concord Avenue- also known as Pampered Pets - which EFB-JSB, Inc. owns. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 35 Parcel 113. The site is zoned IC (Industrial Corridor District). The property impacted by the special use permit is approximately 2,220 square feet, or 0.05 acres. The applicant proposes that the proposed outdoor dog run at 604 Cynthianna Avenue be subject to the conditions of the special use permit SP-13-07-18 currently in place for 601 Concord. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as Business and Technology. Information pertaining to the request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development- services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this SUP application may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970- 3186). Staff Report by Brian Haluska Jim Brown, the owner of Pamper Pets said he appreciated the Commission’s time to look at this opportunity. We are a large employer of youth and seniors in Charlottesville. We operate with 40-45 employees and we would appreciate the continued support of this small business in Charlottesville. Questions for clarity: Commissioner Santoski: asked about the number in the outdoor run and sees 25 dogs from 5:00 pm until dusk. What happens after dusk? Mr. Brown: said effectively all the dogs are up by 5:30, there are some of our very good customers that come and use the play area and so we wanted to make a restriction there but that’s been minimal since we’ve had the existing end. Chair Green: said to Mr. Haluska, you mentioned that this could not be used as a dog run independently on this property since the SUP runs with the land. She asked what if Pampered Pets were to go out of business and another dog or pet operation moved in. Mr. Haluska: said in that case they would be able to avail themselves to this area so they would have use of the back yard of 604 Cynthiana Ave until whatever agreement with the current landowner, and with Mr. Brown in this specific area. Open the Public Hearing: 7 Ashley Davies, 1000 Locust Ave spoke in favor of Pampered Pets, stating Mr. Brown offers a really wonderful service to our community that is much needed and he is a lover of animals and a wonderful neighbor. She hopes you will approve his Special Use Permit. Closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Santoski moved to recommend approval of a special use permit as requested in SP17-00005, amendment to the one use because I find that approval of this request is required for the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, seconded by Commissioner Clayborne, motion passes 6-0. SP17-00006 – 517 Park Street (STARS) - – Weber Property Management, LLC, landowner has submitted a special use permit for a residential treatment facility with greater than 8 residents at 517 Park Street. The permit would allow the applicant to operate a residential treatment facility serving up to 16 residents on property located at 517 Park Street. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 53 Parcel 9. The site is zoned R-3H (Multifamily Residential with Architectural Design Control District Overlay.) The property impacted by the special use permit is approximately 10,193.04 square feet, or 0.234 acres. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as High Density Residential. Information pertaining to the request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development- services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this SUP application may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). Brian Haluska: The chief concern of staff regarding the request is the potential impact of increased parking demand on the surrounding properties. The applicant states in correspondence with staff that a number of factors will lead to less demand on the parking if the SUP is approved. Currently the facility at 517 Park Street houses 8 residents as well as STARS administrative functions. The administrative staff creates part of the demand for parking, along with the fact that the STARS program brings residents from other homes in the community to the facility at 517 during the day. The applicant indicates that if the special use permit is approved, the overall number of residents served by the STARS program will be reduced by 4, which will lessen the demand at 517 Park Street. Additionally, the STARS program intends to move its administrative staff off-site, which will also lessen the demand. The applicant indicates that the current maximum amount of administrative staff on-site during the day is 9 staff members, and if the special use permit is approved, that will be reduced to 4 staff members. Kara Gloeckner, applicant said she started the Structured Therapeutic Adolescent Residential Service (STARS) program in Charlottesville. Five years in, she moved some of the STARS operation into its current location at 517 Park St., where the organization’s administrative offices are housed and eight girls rest their heads each night. She said the house was built in 1984 and was originally designed to house 16 mentally disabled adults so allowing that many girls to live there would be fulfilling its intended use. She said replacing the offices with bedrooms would make for a more home-like environment and alleviate parking stress. She said she is aware of the community’s concern. When she first asked for the permit in 2001, because neighbors were worried about increasing the number of girls in the home, she withdrew the application. We just felt like time would help them understand what the experience of being our neighbor would be like. Fifteen years later, I feel like we’ve been a really great neighbor. 8 Questions for clarity: Commissioner Clayborne: asked what is the actual parking demand you need? Ms. Gloeckner: said we have the road side permit parking for our STARS vehicles that transport children. We have 4 spaces but sometimes it’s only 3. We have an overflow section for staff personnel. The other spaces are just for people who visit during the day. Commissioner Clayborne: said you have leased 4 spaces. What is the backup plan if that lease fell through? Ms. Gloeckner: said we would have the opportunity to have our parking at the church. Commissioner Keesecker: the packet shows you have 3 bedrooms on the lower level on the bottom floor, and you have 3 bedrooms on the second floor. Ms. Gloeckner: said we use those bedrooms as offices. We have 3 bedrooms and an office on the first and second floors. Commissioner Keesecker: asked if the residents had cars? Ms. Gloeckner: said she would never house a youth with a car. Ms. Creasy: said the rule pertaining to the number of residents allowed has to do with licensure and it will remain for that as long as it meets a certain criteria. That is a requirement under the state code for Residential Treatment facilities. Ms. Gloeckner: said her license has always been through The Department of Social Services but now she is transitioning to The Department of Behavioral Health which holds us to a better level of care. Chair Green: asked Brian, she knows this is a high density zoning district, with this addition would it increase the density past what is allowed in this zoning district? Mr. Haluska: said not from a zoning perspective. Residential treatment facilities are treated like a single unit under state law. Any Residential treatment facility of 8 or fewer residents must be treated like a single family detached house in our zoning ordinance. Commissioner Keesecker: asked if the office uses in R3 zoning district to some percentage are larger than or beyond ancillary, or not. Mr. Haluska: said he doesn’t know that it is in this case because it is all part of the same operation of the residential treatment facility. You could see where someone might try to use that as a loop hole to try to operate an office that is not permitted in that zone. He said it still differentiates between a commercial office and a nonprofit office and they are called out as separate uses. He said that was a big issue with Common Hall back in the day where there was talk about transitioning, and people trying to sell it as a 9 commercial office because there were many uses as a nonprofit. He said that is where the defining line for R-3 zoning comes into play. Commissioner Keesecker: asked wouldn’t an ancillary use be by-right in a situation that serves the residents on premises but an office use serving residents that are not on premises seems to be burdening this location with more office use than the residential treatment facility itself would deserve. It is serving an office use that is beyond just the people who live here. Mr. Haluska: said we would have to look up the definition to what an office is to determine how that works. Certainly there is no commercial activity going on. It is a question ultimately for the zoning administrator as to whether that office can do certain ancillary activities. Within it those activities are related to the residential treatment facility of some sort and there are no more than 8 residents on the site. Chair Green: said this is a residential zoning district and if she moved there with 12 kids and what you just said is this is an SUP to house people on site. How is that different than if some family moved in with 12 kids? Mr. Haluska: said because of how the state code is written, we have to allow a residential treatment facility anywhere we allow single family detached residents. Open the Public Hearing: Lisa Brush: She came down from Fairfax, VA, and she was in the STARS care when she was 15 and didn’t complete the program. She said she wanted to be grown, and while at the group home she made lasting relationships and they were the only family she had. The staff gives us a home and Kara is a mother figure. She said denying to increase the girls beds would be harming to those at risk because there are not many facilities that provide these services. Now, I am an accountant and married with two children. LaTasha Adam: said she moved from the Chesapeake area and there was a lack of foster homes and was in detention centers. In the STARS program she went to Charlottesville High School where she was a cheerleader and on the step team. She worked at KFC and Subway. She said definitely being in that program changed her life and the STARS staff are genuine people that care. She supports the request. Debbie Frances: said she has an adopted daughter who stayed at the STARS program for almost 5 years. Kara and all her staff were magnificent in raising her. She had many issues and they were wonderful and her daughter finished high school at CHS and nursing school at PVCC. I don’t know where she would be today without this program. She hopes you will support their request. Cheri Lewis, 809 2nd Street, NE: said she was on the planning commission when they reviewed the first application for this. She wishes the applicant had given this commission a reason to grant this SUP for increased density. She fears that is not the case by any means. Some concerns are relevant, noise, police called at midnight, how it impacts the neighbors, and the parking. She begs to differ that this is not just about the number of people laying their heads at night. It’s about a treatment facility for youth and those youth are at risk girls. She said this is what has upset the parking situation - for instance, the visitors and friends that come. The business aspect served the onsite residents but it also served two and three other facilities located in the city. 10 Jackie Lichtman, 336 Parkway Street: said she has lived there 17 years, and she and her husband have never opposed that house being there. She thinks the fact that these girls are being helped is wonderful. Right now she has other homes, serving 16 girls. The girls they are serving are not from Charlottesville. From January to September the police have been called 41 times. She feels that increasing the number of girls in one house is going to cause more arguments and more disruptions. The question is: is this the best thing to have so many girls in one house. Kelly Speasmaker: said some of the concerns from the community meeting were why in Charlottesville and why on Park Street. It is a strain on our community. They should not be sent here by their localities. The Virginia Department of Social Services reports that 4,913 youth were in foster care in 2016. Charlottesville is a great place to serve these girls. It is a wealthy community with a multitude of services. We feel that we are bringing money to the community resources, and further strengthening our community service offerings. These youth have been failed by their own communities but there are many success stories as you have heard. Bud Treakle, 611 Park Street: said we are talking about a SUP that will change the zoning of this property. If you allow this and some other use comes in that is not the same type of use, not what Kara Glocekner is running, you could have 10-12 cars there every day. The state law allows a home of this type to be in a residential community with 8 residents. You shouldn’t increase the number, because the density would be too much based on what could happen in the future. Rhonda Bulliba: said she thinks it’s a great spot, and it is much needed in the community and every community. She is in support of having this pass tonight and hope you all will be also. Sherry Kent: said she has been an employee for STARS programs for 15 years and works with a wonderful team where I am are proud to work there. She said please consider what we are here for. Mr. James Kent: said he supports Kara and has known her for a very long time. It is a successful business because she truly cares for these girls and boys. She really helps these kids, but she is not going to do it if it doesn’t work. Chris Speasmaker: said he is a local real estate agent. He strongly supports the mission of the STARS program and remains focused on serving the kids. Once we heard the concerns from our neighbor, we decided that it would to our best interest to reduce it to 12. Jennifer Ferguson: said she honors the work that is being done at this facility. But with more girls, there is more negative energy for them to feed off of. Ms. Ferguson said the proposed expansion is harmful to a group of girls who need undivided, individualized and committed attention even more than the average teenage girl. She is opposed to this request to add 8 more girls. Steve Bolton, 332 Parkway Street: said we support the idea of the facility; we are just concerned about adding more individuals to it. We think there will be more possibilities for incidents so that is our concern from that standpoint. We are opposed to expanding the number of individuals. Carol Green: said she has been Kara’s friend for over 10 years and she trusts her judgment in running her business very well. She supports her getting the SUP and the STARS is a great asset to this community. 11 Jim Dunnivan: said he respects the fact that Kara has decided to move on for SUP reduced from 16 down to 12. This has a great impact on the neighborhood. There were 51 police calls in 6 months and six of them were for violence. These people are taught to restrain these young girls. Remember SUP goes with the land. We don’t have 8 troubled men, or treatment facility, category people in other categories. Samantha Brandle: said it is extremely scary, a lot of our police calls are for the safety of these girls. When the police come they don’t use sirens or have their lights flashing, they come up and ask what is wrong. We clearly explain that we have a girl missing and we are concerned about her. Most of the time, they come back on their own. They were out being a teenager; they were out having fun. If one of the girls makes a poor decision, she will be asked to leave our program. Sometimes fights do happen at the house, and a kid might have to be restrained. She thinks it is ridiculous that we need to decrease from 16 to 12 because we are taking away 4 girls that might be a great candidate because you are worried about parking. Mark Kavit, 400 Altamont Street: said he is a board member of NDRA but cannot speak on the behalf of NDRA because we did not get organized to address this specific subject. In 2001, we did express concerns about this potential increase. He said he realized that your decision is based on parking, traffic and zoning. He said recently the applicant got a divorce and she got two houses and he got two houses. It sounds like she is trying to find some way to increase her revenue without increasing her overhead, but it should not have an impact on the neighborhood. He took a tour of the house and doesn’t think it is necessary to take these two offices out. Jonathan Hornsby: said he lives about 2 blocks from the STARS house. He said some of the neighbors’ concerns are valid. One of the neighbors said the frequent police calls create just a general sense of fear in the back of their minds which is natural when you see a lot of police cars. The effect on the girls of having increase density, there is no magic number for the proper density for a house of at-risk youth. It seems that smaller is better. These kids are already traumatized, so to increase the density would be more harmful to them. He said 8 is a lot to put into one house and it just seems that 16 would be harmful to the girls there. Closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Lahendro: asked if a condition of 5 employees was part of the motion, how would it be policed? Mr. Haluska: answered that is a difficult thing to police, but there would be some enforcement in terms of if the public feels that is being exceeded that, our zoning people would have to go over there to make a call to the applicant and say remember this is what is going on. If we have been able to collect enough evidence of that whether we are monitoring the parking out there seeing people potentially coming in and out and how that is working. If we feel that we have enough documentation that they have exceeded that condition, at that point we would probably bring it back to the Planning Commission or City Council for potential ramification of that. That would go with any other conditions that you might add. Commissioner Lahendro: said it essentially depends upon the neighbors observing and making a complaint. Mr. Haluska: said or calling Neighborhood Development Services to say this is going on and we would appreciate you looking into that further. 12 Commissioner Santoski: said the Arc of the Piedmont is two doors down from STARS and he has been there 6 years and the STARS have been fairly good neighbors. The two buildings that we own are 515 and 509. We sold them a few years ago and we now lease them back. The new owners we lease from, and he doesn’t know the relationship they have tonight, but he does know with Brian Webber that there was a constant feud over parking spots and they were constantly in the parking lot tagging cars since he didn’t have to tag the spots. It is a very limited amount of parking. We need to be really careful like with the MACAA conversation to keep separate what is going on with a certain program and how we feel about it emotionally and what is going on with the land use and what is going on with zoning. What is the SUP going to do in the future and what happens if STARS leave the site; how does that impact what we have to do. These are very difficult conversations to have because you have to separate all of these things out. We can parade all sorts of people who are for and against what the program is. We go back to the very thing. This is about land use and zoning and the impact it is having on us and does it met the criteria we set for ourselves. Commissioner Clayborne: commented that he doesn’t question the intent or the goodwill of the program. The part that I’m struggling with is when we’re assessing the impacts, whether it’s parking or whether it’s noise, we’ve heard the public testimonies that have come before us and have read multiple emails and documents, and I’m really struggling to see how this benefits the public necessity. Commissioner Keller: move to recommend denial of this application for a special use permit; second Commissioner Clayborne: motion passes 6-0. Recess 9:00 SP17-00001 - 201 West Water Street – Landowner Black Bear Properties, LLC has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request to allow for increased height and increased residential density per City Code Section 34-162(a) at 201 West Water Street with frontage on nd West Water Street and 2 Street SW. A residential density of 101 units per acre is proposed (up to 240 DUA by SUP can be requested) for a total of 7 units and additional height of about 24.5 feet is proposed for a total height of about 95 feet (up to 101 feet can be requested by SUP). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 28 Parcel 2. The site is zoned DE (Downtown Corridor Mixed Use District) with Architectural Design Control and Urban Corridor Parking Zone Overlays. The property is approximately 0.0690 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan specifies density greater than 15 units per acre. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development- services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this SUP application may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (Haluska@charlottesville.org or by telephone (434-970- 3186). Staff report by Brian Haluska said the Planning Commission should focus on the nature of the zoning as a mixed use zone and you can’t do a purely residential building in this zone. The applicant has provided a small office space on the second floor. The BAR expressed concerns for how the street frontage of this building plays into the activity on the street - how it activates the streets. He said the BAR felt it was going to be a dead zone: a residential lobby and a parking entrance. The BAR recommended moving parking from the project completely to better activate 2nd Street frontage. Jim Grigg, applicant: said the design for this site features seven luxury apartments on all but one of the eight floors and a small commercial office space on the second floor. We are seeking a special use permit to build an additional two floors over the 70 foot building height that’s allowed by right. Questions for clarity 13 Commissioner Clayborne: asked is there a certain ratio of retail versus residential mixed use; are we saying mixed used because of the office on the second floor? Ms. Creasy: said that is not clear, but there is no ratio in this classification. Commissioner Keller: asked is there any public benefit to this project? As an applicant, you are asking for a lot of concessions and you have been very critical of the regulations that we have and why they don’t work for this particular site. She asked, you want us to work with you and give you something that you don’t have by right, so what is the benefit for the public if we make that concession. Mr. Griggs: said you have a small parcel in a desirable location in the city and an owner who is interested in developing a property that will generate 20 times as much revenue for the city as the parcel generates currently and if he can find a compelling way to do that he will. He said there is no negative impact to the adjacent properties from this building being 7 units versus 5 units for example. Open the Public Hearing: Carl Schwarz, 700 Anderson Street: added clarification to something the applicant had said. Mr. Schwarz said when he added that comment (at the BAR meeting), his intent was the applicant presented a certain level of quality, - high quality materials, high quality design - and it was not that the building should mimic or look exactly like it was presented to us at first, but it should still maintain that level of quality if it is going to be worthy of an extra 2 stories in the downtown ADC district. Closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Clayborne:, mentioned parking on the ground floor and there are alleys that connect to the Downtown Mall, retail, restaurants, and people walking up and down there. He thinks it is a shame to vote this for vehicular parking storage on a very prominent corner, so that part gives him some heartburn. The fact that we are calling this mixed use, we can’t do that with a little office tucked in the back. The third part is the back drop behind the Violet Crown Theater. The theater would have a seven story building towering behind it and that would not do the theater any justice. He cannot support the SUP how it is presented at this time. Mr. Grigg: agreed that no, it is not an ideal situation, but if you are parking under the building you can do a three point turn and furthermore these people will not be using their cars very much. City Councilor Galvin: said she had similar concerns as expressed by Commissioner Clayborne. She said there is no specific percentage required for mixed use and that seems very strange because other mixed use districts have percentages. Mr. Griggs: said most of the time when people spend a million dollars for a home they like to have a place to put their car in their property. Chair Green: asked what are your thoughts about providing affordable housing units. Mr. Griggs: said not in this property; because he knows a lot about what it costs to build this type of building. He said you could build housing units in here and subsidize them and make them affordable. You can’t build them at a price point that is affordable; it is impossible. Commissioner Santoski: said he agreed that the plan for the garage is not ideal, but disagreed with the suggestion that the Commission should be making decisions based on the wealth of potential clients or 14 residents. He is not supporting it because of what is happening on that first floor, not because it’s a multi- million dollar apartment building. Commissioner Lahendro: said he seconds all of the comments made. He said the biggest disappointment for him is the lack of vitality on the street that a parking garage provides as well as the entrances and exits across a very busy street. Even though you can back in and out often enough to be able to pull out, he thinks the temptation to most residents is to back out because it is going to be easier. He worries about what that does to pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Lahendro moved to recommend denial of this application for a special use permit; Seconded by Commissioner Keller motion passes 6-0. CP17-00003 – Closing of Brandon Avenue and a Portion of Monroe Lane/15th Street - The Planning Commission and City Council will jointly conduct a public hearing on a request from the University of Virginia to consider a proposal by the University of Virginia and the University of Virginia Foundation requesting the City to vacate Brandon Avenue and a portion of Monroe Lane/15th Street to accommodate a redevelopment project to construct a model green student community. Staff Recommendation, regarding Utilities Issues: If no agreement between the City and UVA is reached prior to the public hearing, as to whether the City will remain the water and wastewater service provider in the redevelopment area, then the Utility Department and the City Attorney’s Office recommend that easements be reserved for all existing City utilities, and that the vacation(s) be conditioned upon the City continuing as the service provider for water and wastewater unless and until a written agreement between the City and UVA establishes otherwise. Additional public hearings would be required in the future in order to abandon any public easements reserved as part of the street vacations requested by this petition. Mr. Lahendro and Mr. Hogg recused themselves. Alice Raucher, Architect at the University – Presentation The redevelopment will transform the Brandon area into a model green community where students will live and learn in a distinctive student experience. Building street fronts will include teaching and academic spaces, student wellness facilities and housing. The redeveloped street will incorporate: • A landscaped bio-retention area which will be the centerpiece of a multi-functional green space • A system of enhanced pedestrian connections to South Lawn, the Academicals Village, the Health System, and adjacent neighborhoods. • A mix of uses to include student wellness, academics, and housing all curated to activate the street and foster a heightened student experience. Aligned with the City zoning code and Streets That Work program, the redevelopment vision includes a distribution of academic, research, and residential uses. The City Attorney’s Office recommends that the City vacate the rights-of-way by one or more recordable Deeds of Vacation, with any conditions on the vacation being put into the deed(s). The deed completing the vacation of Brandon Avenue should include a reference plat showing the width and location of all easements to be reserved granted or abandoned (including those for utilities and bicycle/ pedestrian connections). The deed should not be executed by the City until the locations of all easements can be defined and depicted on the reference plat. Open the Public Hearing: No speakers 15 Closed the Public Hearing Councilor Bellamy: asked how many units will be built on this site? Ms. Raucher: said we only have plans for 300 units for upper class housing currently, but there is a potential for another 250 units. Councilor Bellamy: said potentially 550 units that will be coming into the community and essentially all for student housing. Ms. Raucher: said it is a replacement for our upper class housing where now there is a deficit. Commissioner Clayborne made a motion to certify that the street closing application as presented to redevelopment Brandon Avenue as a green street in according with the narrative associated with the application is consistent with the City’s 2013 Comprehensive Plan, and that there be some onsite indication that this was once part of the development pattern in the City of Charlottesville, seconded by Commissioner Keesecker, motion passes 6-0. Mr. Lahendro and Mr. Hogg rejoined the meeting. ZT-17-10-03: Building regulations - A proposed amendment to the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, Sections 34-558, 34-1100, 34-1146, 34-1147 and 34-1200 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (1990), as amended to in reference to the following: (1) amendment of City Code 34-1200, to delete the definition of “building height”; (2) amendment of 34-1100 to incorporate a methodology for measurement of building height, specifying different approaches for buildings close to a public street and for buildings more than 15 feet away from a public street; (3) amendment of 34-1200, to change the definition of “grade” from “average level of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the building” (current) to “the level of the ground measured at an adjacent public sidewalk”; (4) modification of the Downtown Mixed Use Zoning District regulations, in City Code 34-558(a), to clarify that streetwall and stepback requirements do not apply to the portion of a building façade that fronts on Water Street, but do apply to all other portions of that building’s façade; and (5) amendment of City Code 34-1146 and 34-1147, to allow a limited exception from restrictions on expansion of a nonconforming structure, for nonconforming structures which are “contributing structures” within a design control district with BAR approval. Staff report Lisa Robertson, Deputy City Attorney: said it’s been an important issue for a long time but it’s only becoming more urgent as more and more people want to actually pursue larger developments in the city. Right now, we have a height measurement emergency, and I am offering a couple of recommendations for your consideration in the interim. In one, height is defined as “the distance measured from grade level to the highest point” of a building. She said another section states that height is to be calculated by measuring separately the average height of each building wall, then averaging them together. The latter conflicts with the first and can result in buildings that are higher than the limits specified for individual zoning districts. She said what she is recommending are changes that would specify very directly that buildings have to comply with the minimum and maximum height regulations in the zoning district. She said her recommendation would be a good short-term measure until the full review of city development guidelines is completed. It may not be the place you want to stay for another decade if you want to promote different types of development in different types of conditions, and we’ve got to work through it and somehow make it more user-friendly because this is stuff that staff has to interpret and the city attorney’s office has to be able to figure it out. 16 Open the Public Hearing: Ashley Davies, a planner with law firm Williams Mullen and a member of CADRe: said we all want to come up with a resolution that works for the building height issue. That has been under review for several months and we have been working with staff to make sure the building we design is very context-sensitive and is actually meeting the current definition of building height, and we don’t want to be caught in a situation where the building height definition changes mid-stream for our project. Valerie Long, Attorney with Williams Mullen, who is also working on the project: said the grade of Water Street drops 19 feet along the span of the proposed building, making it potentially difficult to establish a height under the proposed change. She said averaging the height provides for flexibility in a hilly city. The averaging enables that building to be context-sensitive and account for that dramatic change in grade. She is concerned that this definition, by not taking averaging or differences in grade into account, will result in a significant impact on the height of that building. Carl Schwarz: said for the ADC District text you might swap the words “protected property” and “contributing building,” because a protected property is not within an ADC District. He said he agrees with Commissioner Lahendro, that if you can have an 18 foot tall parapet you have added a story and a half to a building. He said an easy solution is to just go with option one as an interim solution. He does not believe it is a great solution but a very easy one though and fairly closely matching the building code. To reiterate some of the change of the language that CADRe has suggested, the reason for striking all that text was in regard to the minimums. It doesn’t make sense that a building can’t have any portion below a minimum height when they aren’t required to take up their whole site. He believes CADRe and PLACE worked really hard on that revised definition and he thinks it is really close and he thinks it could actually be beneficial and it encourages stepping and it encourages buildings to follow topography and it makes them relate to the street. The height is defined by the public realm, but he is fearful that it does not work in 3-D. He questioned, if you have two opposing frontages, where do you draw the line as to where a building has to step down to meet the opposing frontage. So something needs to happen to make that work. The faster we can get to a good definition the better because he thinks it would create better forms in our city and closer to what we desire. Councilor Galvin: asked have we thought about looking back at the original recommendation that was done by Code Studio with West Main Street. It did have a very clear graphic representation as well as a definition of height, and it had the bulk plane to deal with adjacencies and behind. You found your primary street and you could have a secondary street. It is a possibility that we could run this by the Form Base Code Institute that is currently working on a project to see how this is handled in other parts of the country. Ms. Robertson: said she doesn’t remember exactly what Code Studio recommended, but what we did in West Main Street because of the very issue with the averaging provision we are trying to get rid of. For everyone else, we moved to a simpler definition that said you measure height from the elevation of West Main Street to the top of the building. That was easy because it is a relatively small district and everything was trying to be oriented to one street. In a district where you have more than one and you are trying to deal with multiple frontages and you care about multiple frontages it is a little more difficult, but she suggests that the interim easy solution option one is about as close to what you have on West Main Street as she can get because for most of the areas in which built conditions exist outside of places like Greenbrier, the buildings are closer than 15 feet to the street and you are measuring from the adjacent sidewalk. Closed the Public Hearing Chairman Green: said is the general public going to understand this or are we going to have to hire one of these professionals every time we do something? 17 Commissioner Keesecker: said he has never been in a ‘height measurement emergency’ before so he doesn’t exactly know what the safety protocols are and we have been talking about height for a long time. It feels like the emergency has come on because of one application at the ice park. Commissioner Keesecker voted against the recommendation because he felt the Charlottesville Technology Center shouldn’t be held to a different standard than recent construction projects and he wanted to delay implementation of the new rules. Ms. Robertson: said her concerns about the discrepancies in the zoning code predate the application of the Charlottesville Technology Center and that the emergency is due to a sense that there are vulnerabilities in the code. We keep not taking action and the next application comes in and the next one comes in, and we’ve been living with some really terrible ordinance provisions for close to two decades now. Commissioner Santoski: said we have let everybody and their brother look at this: PLACE, CADRe and anybody else who wants to comment on height. We keep kicking the can down the road to let somebody else look at this. At some point, we do have to make a decision. Commissioner Lahendro moved to recommend approval of the amendment to 34-1100; (1) eliminate the averaging for height, (2) if the building has frontage on Waters Street and any other street, only the façade on Waters Street is exempt; (3) if the non-conforming structure proposed to be expanded is also a protected property or a contributing structure within an architectural designed district, and a clarification; Motion seconded by Commissioner Keller, passes 5-1 ( Commissioner Keesecker voting no) Mr. Keesecker said there were some comments from the public that should be applied; He asked Ms. Robertson is there are ever a time when the building code gets updated and is there a time where the new code is in effect and the new code changes occur. Also, is there a window where the new one is going to be mandatory by June 1st, but between now and June 1st; could I preempted myself into the new code where I could still stay under the old one. Does that ever happen in zoning stuff? Ms. Robertson say no it’s not that complicated; she said on an occasion, City Council has had development applications that were submitted and were under review by a certain date but will not be subject to these changes and can continue under the ordinance that they were submitted under. Commissioner Keesecker said people have told him that the confusion of not knowing how these issues are going to fall out has made it difficult to make any moves toward making a project happen, so either there is a rush to get something in or there is the wait and see to what comes out of it. He recommends that it take effect February 1st, and have three months to get it in the door. Chair Green said she did not want to stop because here is one application and we have been talking about this for a whole year. As the Planning Commission we have to continue moving forward, we can’t stop something because of one project. Commissioner Keller said we should acknowledge and say thank you to CADRe, PLACE and Mike Stoneking for his leadership, BAR, SELC and others who contributed to this process and that work is not going away out of good comments in letters. Ms. Robertson said the other list of interim things that you approved for at least further public discussion. The future amendments we will be looking at will include things such as interim provisions for dealing with the lack of definition of mixed use. Commissioner Keller and Chair Green agreed that the next amendment to look at is mixed use. Vice Chair Clayborne motion to Adjourn: 11:10 18 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2017– 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. Commission Work Session (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green Vice-Chair; Corey Clayborne, Commissioners Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, and John Santoski. Members Absent: Kurt Keesecker Chair Green called the meeting to order at 4:50pm. A request was made to provide an overview of the process for the E&S appeal and that information was provided. Commissioner Clayborne asked if the applicant for West2nd had provided information on how the affordable housing requirements would be met. Mr. Haluska noted that there is information on what would be required if payment or physical units are chosen but the applicant has not determined what choice they are making. The Commission asked for clarification of the changes made to the Water Street Promenade site and to verify that the IPP for the Coal Tower structure will remain. It was noted that a future discussion on guidance for when changes to a PUD which can be handled administratively and those needing PC review could be appropriate. II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, Council Chambers Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green Vice-Chair; Corey Clayborne, Commissioners Genevieve Keller, Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, and John Santoski. Members Absent: Kurt Keesecker Staff: Missy Creasy, Carolyn McCray, Lisa Robertson, Brian Haluska, Marty Silman, David Frazier Council: Mike Signor, Bob Fenwick, Kathy Galvin, Wes Bellamy Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Green at 5:30 pm A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: reported he attended the Tree Commission meeting on December 5th. A report was presented from the Charlottesville Tree Stewards which have grown to 150 members. They donate 6,000 saplings a year to public education. It was approved to donate two trees to Emancipation Park. Lastly, some of the existing trees on city property are damaged due to construction. Currently the arborist only reviews preliminary site plans, not final contract documents or construction activities. The Tree Commission will be developing recommendations for improving city over site for protecting and saving trees during construction. The Housing Advisory Committee will meet tomorrow Wednesday, December 13th in the city hall basement conference room from 12:00 – 2:00 pm. 1 Commissioner Keller: said she has no formal report but in speaking with Edwina St Rose, from the Preservers of the Daughters of Zion has specifically ask that she invite the Planning Commission to attend the dedication of the memorial to the unknown at Daughters of Zion Cemetery, this coming Saturday from 2:00 to 4:00 and refreshments will be served following at Tonsler Park and Recreation Center and this invitation would include the public. Commissioner Dowell: reported on Thursday November 30th she attended the Small School Capital Improvement committee meeting at Public Works. The goal is to figure out how we are going to modernize many of our schools. The newest school we have was built in 1976 which was Jackson Via Elementary School. She said many of the schools need improvement but the decision is whether or not to make small improvements which cost large capital dollars or do we try to figure out how to modernize the schools all together. The first school to get improvements will be Clark Elementary School; and the field house at Charlottesville High School. Commissioner Clayborne: no report; He recognized Mary Joy Scala, the staff liaison for the Board of Architectural Review who is retiring at the end of this year. He said it was tremendous to work with her and the city will definitely be missing someone special. Commissioner Santoski: no report B. UVA REPORT: Brian Hogg: no report; He commented that things are getting started with the Brandon Avenue project and plans are in order for the Ivy Corridor site (the Cavalier site). C. CHAIR'S REPORT: Lisa Green, no formal report; She noted that the Planning Commission has been meeting sometimes three times a week on the up-coming Comprehensive Plan; and we will meet one more time before the holidays, have a break and start again with discussion before we take our third round of outreach documents to the community. Chair Green also echoed thanks to Mary Joy Scala for all of her help and guidance through entrance corridor review, plans and projects. She will be missed. Commissioner Keller: asked would it be possible to send her a letter of good wishes on her retirement and thanks for her years of staffing the Entrance Corridor Review Board. The Planning Commissioners all agreed to have the letter sent to Ms. Scala. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS: Missy Creasy said it is the 5th quarter of the regulatory review process, and she is working with staff to finish up the draft of the report to forward to Chair Green. We will turn it into Council by the deadline of December 18th which will give them the update of where we are with the Comprehensive Plan, the Legal Review project, and the Standards and Design Manual project. In this last quarter the Planning Commission had about fifteen work sessions. The update will be completed on time and we will be working to coordinate the future work sessions for our next group discussions for the Comp Plan land use map. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes - October 10, 2017– Pre meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – October 24, 2017 - Work Session 3. Site Plan – Cedars Court Apartments Motioned by Commissioner Lahendro to approve the Consent Agenda, Seconded by Commissioner Clayborne, motion passes 6-0; (with one minor change) Adjourned for a break at 5:45 until 6:00 III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. 2 Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. SP17-00007 - 200 2nd Street SW (West2nd) Brian Haluska, Principal Planner, said the staff does support the increase in residential density on the site. Where the debate on this falls is in the proposed amendments to those conditions that the applicant has requested. Under the new proposal, there would be 46,035 square feet of office space, 16,190 square feet of retail space and a 24,390 square foot open plaza in the southeast corner of the lot that would serve as the market. There would be 252 parking spaces built into the structure. Of those, 156 must be made available to the public based on the terms of the City Council’s request for proposals. Since the original permit was approved, affordable housing has become a much more pressing issue in the community. Commissioners had asked for more information on how the West2nd project would comply. Mr. Haluska stated that with this project, Stacy Pethia, City Housing Coordinator did review the proposal and did make a note based on the drawings, their requirements are for 25 affordable unit’s on- or off-site or an approximate cost of $450,000 and they are actively pursuing off-site units. Sacha Rosen, R2L Architects: said I am speaking for Keith Woodard, developer and we would be starting construction of this project if everything was ready, but however, the project due to increasing construction costs and complexity of design it was no longer feasible. He said the project was revised to find ways to bring down the cost of construction. For instance, 3½ levels of underground parking have become two. An indoor space that had been intended to serve as a public event space will now be retail. Mr. Woodard is now requesting an amendment to the permit to increase the allowed residential density to 83 units per acre, which would allow for a total of 97 residential units. That’s up from 69 units and also substitutes new design drawings. Mr. Woodard said his plan is to build affordable units elsewhere in the city. Commissioner Dowell: asked what made you take some of the interior market space away? Mr. Rosen: said the market would use that space one morning per week. In the previous design they were trying to find some alternative use for that space the rest of the week, and an idea that was brought was to use it as an event space. In order to use it as an event space you would need a kitchen, a clearer floor space and attempt to make it a double height space.All of those things were quite expensive and drove up the cost. Commissioner Lahendro asked about the size of a typical market stall size, square footage wise. Mr. Rosen: said the typical model they are using is 10ft x 10ft. In this particular plan, there are some stalls that are 10ft x 20ft. We are now working with Parks and Recreation and have discovered the stall sizes range from 6ft x 6ft up to about 12ft x 20ft. Commissioner Santoski: said he sees a lot of stalls on South Street which would mean closing South Street off which he doesn’t think it was intended in the previous plan. Mr. Rosen: said it was intended in the previous plan to close off South Street during the market. Commissioner Santoski: said not to put stalls there; in the original plan? Mr. Rosen said there are stalls along the sidewalk so the public would be walking in South Street - that is a change; and this plan is several weeks old and during the public meeting we did hear of concerns regarding the privately used parking space. We have revised our stall lay out to not use that so those folks can continue to use their cars to pull in and out even on market days. He said the design of South Street had 3 continued to evolve. We are trying to work with all of the stakeholders on the use of South Street. Chair Green said in mentioning the stakeholders, the original stakeholders were the city market users and vendors, not fire and rescue, etc. She said have you met with the original market vendors and users for this original RFP. Mr. Rosen said they are getting information from Parks and Recreation and interpreting what the vendors want. Chair Green said the short answer is you have not met with the vendors. Mr. Rosen said correct. Brian Hogg, said you show all residential floors 10 feet except the top two floors which are 11 and 12; is that constant with how the building was approve initially? Mr. Rosen said no, the floor to floor heights have changed. For the residential floors they were 10 feet before, but there was not enough clear height on some of the floor to allow duct transfers and other mechanical equipment so, for that reason we have had to adjust some of the floor and floor heights. Commissioner Lahendro said it doesn’t look as significant to him as before; what is the difference in how far the building is stepping back after 45 feet? He said maybe it was the difference in materials because the prior design had a darker color brick for the street wall up to 45 foot and then setback with lighter material and that might be what he did perceive not necessarily was the depth of the setback. Mr. Rosen said our setback is greater than what was previously approved. He said both are open to exploring new colors for the building. Commissioner Lahendro asked what will animate the park as you are designing it now. Mr. Rosen said we are adding a series of eight trees along South Street and two on Water Street. The trees will be set in planters and raised eighteen inches above the plaza paving. Commissioner Santoski: said from the previous plan it looks like you are losing about 26 parking spots. Mr. Rosen said the previous SUP showed 262 parking spaces, and the final approved plans that had a building permit had 256 parking spaces and we are proposing 251. Commissioner Santoski said you are showing 100 spaces for the public to use but a lot more people are driving larger cars than compact cars, so is the space going to be usable due to the smaller spaces for compact cars? Mr. Rosen said that is true because one of the major changes was we went from three levels to two levels, and saved quite a bit of money. We continue to make modifications to the parking garage and we have converted a substantial number of compact spaces to full size spaces. Commissioner Santoski: said the original SUP that was approved was based off the original RFP, which was replied to and everybody responded to, do you believe that the SUP that you are asking to be amended now responds to the original RFP that Council set forth many years ago? 4 Mr. Rosen said he does believe it responds to the RFP and it does respond to the approved SUP with the modifications set forth for requested. Councilor Szakos, How many units will there be? Mr. Rosen said we are asking for approval for 97 units but we will probably have 87 units and providing one parking space per unit Councilor Szakos said at the very bottom of the right hand picture are those vendor spots, and are those spots necessary to fullfill the obligation for the number of spots that are required in the SUP? Mr. Rosen said those spots are not required to meet the requirements of the SUP. The requirement in the SUP is one hundred 10 x 10 stalls and there is no requirement for the width of stalls. Councilor Szakos said when this first started the appurtenance, the top was more than a mechanical room, is it a mechanical room? Mr. Rosen said as of today we have included two residential units in the roof top structure. The zoning use has changed since that time. Councilor Szakos said 25 affordable units and we can’t require them on site so where are you envisioning those? Mr. Rosen said the applicant is attempting to provide the affordable housing off site on Harris Street. Councilor Fenwick, said you are building 97 units? Mr. Rosen said we are asking for an approval of 97 but out current plan today is 87 units. Mr. Fenwick said what you are contributing to the affordable housing fund is $450,000 which is $18,000 per unit. Keith Woodward, the developer, said he is not sure how this number of twenty-five came about because our calculations have been more like six or eight or maybe ten units but it is all based on the formula that is required and we will certainly meet that formula. We plan to build twelve or sixteen units on Harris Street; not twenty-five units. Councilor Fenwick said you mentioned efficiencies, are they still going to be marketed as luxury units. Mr. Rosen said when speaking about efficiencies and he means the amount of sellable square footage to the total gross square footage constructed and that means more of the space inside the building is usable. Councilor Fenwick asked about the number of reserved units, what was the deposit to reserve them? Keith Woodward said that depends on the size of the unit and it was either 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 dollars. Yes they are all refundable deposits at this point and will convert to contract once we have more documents. Mayor Signor, regarding the construction, what have you done to insure what happen last time won’t happen again? 5 Mr. Rosen said Mr. Woodard has brought in an experienced team to work together to deliver a number of high rise projects. We have a long strong history of completing these projects. We strongly believe that we are going to make this happen and we have never failed before as a team. Open the Public Hearing Jennifer Larimer: said she is in objection to the closure of South Street and against the closing of South Street on Saturdays which is one of the most difficult times for us to exit our homes. As residents and business owners and tenants fronting on and gaining principle access from South Street we strenuously object to any closure of South Street. We have significant concerns over impacts to accessibility for emergency vehicles serving the South Street property. If the development program cannot be accommodated within the limits of the private property and outside the limits of private right-of-ways, perhaps it is time for the developers and the city to take pause and reconsider the design and the economics of the project. If the project cannot be financial viable without the extraordinary and unprecedented consumption of public right- of-way then the city and the developer should return to the basics. They should re-negotiate the purchase agreement, and redesign the project to fit within the limits of the property available for development. She presented a petition of 59 signatures from residents on South Street. Beverly Ball, 100 Ridge Street, Midway Manor: said she was very happy to hear Mr. Santoski say he didn’t know South Street is going to be closed. She said that is the way she feels, because she is 81 years old and in the last four months she’s been to the emergency room three times. She is just one of the 100 residents at Midway Manor. She said the rescue squad comes quite often to Midway Manor and the fire engine too. We have visitors who can only come to us on Saturday morning. Please do not let them close South Street on Saturday mornings because we do need that excess. Michael Allenby: said he has lived in downtown Charlottesville for 17 years and his front window looks onto the parking lot that we are talking about tonight. He said when looking out his window he sees two very tall buildings with unfullfilled purposes. He remembers having a conversation with the original architect in 2014; and he asked him why they were intending to do this project and the sole answer was because the city asked. He said this is in the city’s hands. He said he saw the sign about the zoning and he wondered was this an opportunity to reconsider what is going on due to the transition that Charlottesville has gone through since this original project was intended, and to influence the vision and the purpose of the project. With what is is being considered with the parks and the statues and there is a lot of real estate in the hands of Charlottesville. He thinks this is an opportunity to think about what the purpose of the project is. Morgan Butler: Southern Environmental Law Center: First, we are not opposed to increasing the density of the project. However, we agree with staff’s recommendation that any additional density should be accommodated in the building design that was originally approved. This is because the significant design changes the applicant is proposing would worsen the impacts to adjacent properties and the historic district. Most notably, the height of the building would now rise nearly another 20 feet, reaching right around 130 feet at its highest point. That would dwarf the one to four story buildings that surround it, and make it among the tallest—if not the tallest—building in the City. Also, along Water Street and along 2nd Street, the new design would provide only a 5 (or 6) foot stepback before then climbing to 107 feet. That minimal stepback will do little to mitigate the impacts that 107 foot walls would have on those streets. Second, the applicant is not entitled to the additional height. Though the new design may arguably fit within the 101 feet allowed in this district if the applicant is allowed to average the streetwall into their height calculation, their special use permit allowing that height is clearly conditioned on building the design that was publicly vetted and approved back in 2014. They do not have a blanket permit to build whatever design they want to up to 101 feet. So please do not overlook or give a free pass to the substantial design changes being 6 requested here. These changes and their impacts should be front and center in your evaluation of this SUP request. Finally, taking a step back and weighing the positives of this proposal against its negative impacts—which is what review of a special use permit request is all about—we don’t see how this could be justified to the public. For one thing, it seems half-baked: the applicant has mentioned several important things tonight that have changed since the submission that is presented in your packet. It’s not even clear what you’re being asked to approved. But more importantly, it appears to us that, at its core, this request is an attempt to take advantage of the problematic way the City has been measuring building height so that the applicant can include more high-end condos in what they themselves label a “luxury living” project. Any public benefit here seems minimal. Mark Rinaldi: said I am Mark Rinaldi, representing the owners of 100 Ridge Street, who fully support the request to increase the height and density but strongly oppose closure of South Street in any way. As the downtown’s primary provider of affordable housing to the elderly and disabled, it is unconscionable that the City would consider closing a street so essential to the ability of emergency vehicles to quickly transport our residents at times when they need it most. Downtown Charlottesville enjoys a gridded street system. Grids are clear, rationale and efficient and are best able to support strategic urbanization. Gridded street systems most efficiently move traffic in areas of higher density and intensity because of the multiple alternative routes afforded. In gridded systems, all streets contribute to the overall efficiency of the system by distributing traffic across the system. Closure of street segments disrupts order and predictability, increases congestion and decreases capacity. Statistics compiled by UVAs Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service reveal that the City will need to accommodate thousands of new housing units by 2025, 2035 and 2045 based on its population projections. Citizens, through on-going Comprehensive Plan input, believe much of the city’s residential and economic growth should be accommodated in and near the Downtown. Sound planning practice dictates that efforts to enhance traffic bearing capacity into, through and within the Downtown are essential for accommodating this growth and the long-term viability and vitality of the City’s center. City’s properly close streets as elements of strategic transportation planning initiatives when other system improvements are provided to off-set system inefficiencies arising from a closure. That a City would close a city street, whether permanently or intermittently, because of a private development’s financial infeasibility is troubling and poor community development policy. Sacrificing transportation system efficiency and the utility of the existing system for all other users, many of whom rely on the existing street system for access and the provision of essential and time-sensitive emergency services, would establish a troubling precedent that the City should be loath to set. Some cities have addressed unique situational circumstances through the strategic granting of limited air rights over public rights-of-way, but always premised on the insistence that the utility of the underlying transportation infrastructure not be compromised or degraded in any way. First Street is already proposed to close to vehicular traffic and convert to pedestrian use only. The closure of another street in this section of the Downtown presents an unacceptable imposition upon the public convenience, welfare and safety and will ultimately undermine the City Center’s ability to accommodate the growth it is otherwise best suited to accept. Increased building height and density support a long-term vision for a vibrant and mixed-use Downtown; additional street closures do not. Brent Nelson: said he has owned the house at 214 1st South Street for 32 years and 20 of which he lived there. He is extremely familiar with the neighborhood and he is here with Mary Gilliam who is the resident and owner of 218 South Street and Roulhac Toledano who is the resident and owner of the pink warehouse building of 100 South Street. We object to increased height already on a building that is way out of scale for the neighborhood and a building that has an improved design that in no way sufficiently mitigates the visual impact of its mass with its design and colors. We are very much opposed to the closing of any portion of South Street for any day of the week. We signed the petition, it makes no sense and it would be reckless for the city to do this. Here we are increasing density downtown and a street system. If you use South Street and Water Street, you will know it is very difficult as it is. So, to do this it would be reckless and it would 7 be difficult for emergency vehicles; and absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. It is his understanding that Ms. Toledano who lives across from this will be the most impacted of anyone in this room and has not been contacted at all by the applicant and hasn’t been part of discussions on this which he finds appalling. He recently discovered by talking to the City Attorney’s office that the city has removed any noise protection for the South Street, Water Street corridor. We have absolutely no protection at all. You can do any decibel at any time of the day that you want. We can call the police and there is nothing that they can do and this was done without his knowledge and he has live there for 20 plus years. He has called the police many times when we had an ordinance that would allow the police to go and have a restaurant lower the volume but we have no protection now; and here we are proposing a development that is going to have an outdoor venue year-round. Robert Maushammer: said he is not an accomplished speaker but he has some views on this. He said there is a100 foot height maximum in this district, why anybody would say this is something new. According to the city code, that provision was put into code on May 19, 2008, everybody that should have known that it is 101 feet from the beginning of this project going back to the RFP the first bids etc. The 101ft. is also meant to include appurtenance levels if there is a residence at that level and that hasn’t changed either. The city in approving 101 feet in the original SUP did not say anything about the appurtenance level, in fact it was only the applicant who tried to shoe horn it in as part of 101 feet plus appurtenance which does not work as far as he can tell. The city market provisions they are proposing are inadequate especially the proposal to have market stalls on South Street. Even if they only close that one block they would be interfering with the traffic, including bicycle traffic and that street is part of the east west bicycle route that was just established and painted a year or two ago. The City Park and Recreation is presumably negotiating this and he certainly hopes the city fathers will support Parks and Recreation and the vendors to get a good solution to those problems. The only one who mentioned appurtenance is being in addition to the 101 feet is the applicant. The city came back and said just 101 feet. The DUA is okay but not if that means increasing the height. He urges that you decide to approve the increase in DUA without the approval of height and defer approval regarding the market. Gennie Maushammer: said there is a question of fairness involved in this decision whether the submission is adequate. It was an open competition to develop this site and now, years later the winning bidder has said he needs a do over. That is not fair to the other bidders or to the citizens as a whole. The only fair thing to do as it seems to her is to re-open the bids for all of the original parties and any new bidders. The request for added density is brought forth by the developer feeling that the building cannot be completed as planned and still be profitable so the request is to add height, additional stories, appurtenances, and reduce the parking. She has heard the discussion about size but overall if you take a floor and a half out of the parking lot she really doesn’t see how you are going to have that many spaces. They also plan to reconfigure the city market based on what was originally proposed. I believe the SUP revision request should be denied and if the developer cannot deliver the current review plan then the property should be opened to new bids and plans. The 99 year lease to the market should also be denied until plans provide adequate parking and spaces for all the vendors and all of the public. Rick Jones: said he has worked in the city 51 years, and has known Keith for 25 years, and this structure is what the city asked for. They asked for it because they needed it; and they wanted it, and it has already been approved. South Street was already planned to be closed. He thinks from the rendering that you have seen from the elevations, and whatever the height is, it is not significant. He has been to many of your hearings on the Comp Plan and he has heard you talk over and over again about the growth that coming to Charlottesville and how you need to meet that growth and how the only way to do that is by increased density. No locality in the country decides that a city is not the best place to have the highest density and the highest height. There is not a more perfect place than this location than what Keith has planned. This is not a freebee for Keith. This is a huge risk; nobody else here is going to sign on a note for probably 60 8 million dollars and be personally be responsible for it and hope that all of those people who are interested in closing on one of those units actually do it. The only reason he is here is to make that vision come true. There are a lot of people who have come to Charlottesville and have sold the city on a bill of goods. There is a big one sitting down on the mall right now and it is not happening. He has seen the work that Keith has done on Allied Street and it has been transformative. He has bought Dogwood Housing. He has preserved affordable housing and he has promised to meet the mandate that you all require for affordable housing for either money or off site. Mayor Satyendra Huja: of Holly Road said that he requested that a project occur on this site. This application was selected as the best project. We need development downtown and this meets the Comprehensive Plan. This will be home to the City Market, will contribute to affordable housing and provide for significant taxes and jobs. Please approve this project. Susan Kreschel: said she lives in the apartment building that is directly across the street from this proposed development on Water Street and 1st Street. When she first heard of this project she was against it because she didn’t want to look outside her building and see a tall massive building outside. Over the years since 2014, she has learned a lot about what this city needs and her opinion has begun to change in response to that. She can’t speak directly to the closing of South Street but wants to speak to height and density. We have in this city some very hard decisions that we have to make. Some of these decisions are not going to be pleasing to all individual residents here and there. We have a crisis on our hands regarding affordable housing. We have competing commercial corridors that are opening up throughout Charlottesville and we know that growth is coming. The decisions that we have to make, is how to bring economic vitality to what is our urban core and this neighborhood is the urban core of Charlottesville. I do not know very many developers in town who are as conscienous as Keith Woodard. He is interested in affordable housing, greenery, civic space, and interested in bringing that economic vitality to downtown. While some people may think it is all about profit often times it is also about the risk that these developers have to under-take in order to create that type of economic vitality and this is a very risky business. The City asked for this project and then the city put in a whole bunch of obstacles in this developers’ way which cause him to go through about eight different site plans before we got to this stage. The City needs to make some very big decisions as to how committed are you in bringing this economic vitality downtown. I am going to ask if you will please consider approving this development. Closed the Public Hearing Chair Green: extended a thank you and appreciation to Councilors Szakos and Fenwick as this will be their last meeting with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dowell: said if this is the best proposal that they had but if the city thought that was the best proposal that they had; it couldn’t have been the best proposal we ever had because they’re changed it. Should we not go back to the drawing board? Commissioner Keller: said conditions do change over time and one would expect there could be some changes. She said she is of the opinion that these are major changes and they are inextricably linked and she thinks this is a really important project for the urban core but she thinks it desires another look. Commissioner Lahendro: said the path that the developer has already gone down the developer has invested a great deal of money in this project all ready and they deserve a fair hearing. Commissioner Green: said she agrees, however, this is city owned property that the city is selling and a RFP to provide a city market for the public. We did have people in a competition so don’t you think it’s just 9 a little bit disingenuous for this to be the winner and now we have something totally different and South Street wasn’t closed. There were market spaces on there but it was on that sidewalk as you saw to remain so it could remain open because we are closing 1st street but it is a little disingenuous to the public since we had meeting after meeting after meeting and it was about meeting with the vendors. She said this was all about our city market and the people who come to our city market and the vendors to give them a permanent home. That’s why this was called city market. Now it’s called West 2nd. The market is decreasing in size and the parking was not economy parking or compact parking so our vendors had spaces to park. Commissioner Lahendro: said what we saw were very conceptual designs and as a design goes forward and more detailed information is discover and more existing conditions are known it changes sometimes. That is just part of the architectural process, and he didn’t say he wasn’t agreeing with everything that is being proposed. He’s not sure he is agreeing with much of it. They deserve a hearing. Commissioner Keller: said we are here at a hearing and while this project was about the market and that was the genesis of its inception; she doesn’t think it is up to us the Planning Commission to speak to the fairness of the RFP process because that is beyond our purview because that belongs to Council and not to us. She feels that the Planning Commission should not engage in an extensive debate on the project details tonight because there are such significant changes to the 2014 SUP and she said they appear to go beyond the scope of a simple amendment and they all are extricable linked with a market, a street, the changes of the number of parking spaces, the loss of the interior market and she could go on. Any one or two of these changes might be a simple amendment to an SUP but they all go together and they speak to the architecturally changes that happened as the project progresses. She thinks they warrant a new SUP application, not to stop this project, and not to delay it but to make sure that we ensure that this very very important project retains the integrity and creditability of the SUP process for our community. In these troubled times it is very important that we hold on to the process and that we follow the rules. She said this plans shows multiple and significant changes to the really important components in condition one of the original plan and substantial time and expertise when into the development of those original conditions both on the part of the applicant and city staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council. She has to say while there are things about the project that she has not always been pleased with, she is very pleased with the process we undertook and she thinks it was precedent setting for our community and this project deserves that we hold ourselves to that standard because we addressed the conditions that were unique to its site and to the neighborhood and actually to our entire city. Lisa Robertson: said there is no separate process for a minor Special Use Permit amendment versus something else. There is a Special Use Permit amendment it’s all the same process. When someone asks you to amend their Special Use Permit, it’s always as you are looking at it as a new one. So whether or not you feel you can adequately evaluate all the aspects of it is still something that is in front of you with all of the changes presented including the changes proposed to the various conditions and it’s as if it is a brand new SUP, so there is not separate procedures for SUP amendments versus a brand new SUP - it’s one in the same procedure. Having heard tonight that South Street is not proposed to be permanently closed, but the idea is that either the street itself or the sidewalk would be closed on a regular basis every Saturday. That is not something that as a zoning matter you should be looking at whether or not the market as proposed on the site is appropriate and what it needs to be. There are different processes for closing a street or allowing somebody to set up stands on a sidewalk every Saturday morning. That is a separate procedure and that is not a zoning procedure. The zoning issue is whether there are adequate accommodations for the market on the site; and if as proposed and organized that presents a good use of the land that’s the site for the market. Commissioner Lahendro: said he evaluates the application based upon this proposal against what was approved before. We, as the Commission, went through a lot of work and discussion with the applicant to come up with the approved designed. He said he looks at this design and he thinks that it is a poor design 10 and it has less benefit. The massing is greater compared to the massing of the project before, the setbacks were better proportioned and placed before, the transparency of the walls was more effective the way it was before, related better to the blocks and the activity around this structure, and the market place experience is so much poorer in this current design. He said taking away that openness at the ground level looking toward 2nd street, and putting the market in smaller vendor footprints, squeezed in to this corner it almost makes it look like an afterthought. It looks like “we’re going to accommodate you for a while and we know you are going to grow so big that you will leave at some point.” He said it is a poor experience for the public and that is why I will vote against the design changes. Commissioner Clayborne: said the motion that is on the table is only to increase the density but everything else of the previous SUP will stick is that correct? It was answered yes, so he spoke to Commissioner Lahendro points that I would be okay because we need more density downtown. Chair Green: said her comments about the public good and the public benefit are about the decrease or the appearance of the decrease in size of this city market. Again, that is what the original RFP was about - creating the space. We had many discussions about the indoor market for weather like last Saturday when we had our holiday market, just for that, we still had the space. Commissioner Lahendro: said that was going to be a public space for the rest of the week to allow other public assemblies and events to happen. Commissioner Clayborne: said he had a comment that we cannot control what the developer does whether it is the affordable units versus the cash but for one we need to get that number clarified because there seems to be some confusion and if it really is 25 affordable units versus the 450K roughly in cash, he is hopeful that we get the actual units because that is what we need. He said in my opinion the 450k is a horrible trade because we really do need the units from personal experience, I am a CEO and I barely can afford to buy a new home in this city; that’s pretty dag-gone bad. We really need to work on the units and the cash, when you do the math, it’s a horrible deal. He said he wanted to voice that from the discussion we’ve had about affordable housing. Commissioner Dowell: said in our Comp Plan discussions we seem to be okay with more density and she is okay with that. With the affordable housing crisis that we have, she needs to know are we getting units or are we getting cash and the developer has already said he is not giveing us 25 units and if he does it is less than that. She said there are so many pieces to this puzzle that we just don’t know the answers for and for her she doesn’t feel comfortable moving forward until we have all of those answers. She asked is it possible to defer, while she doesn’t think it is a horrible project but it definitely can become more prepared than what we got tonight. She said the developer just said on record that he is not offering 25 affordable units. Ms. Roberson: said that is not the developer’s choice, it gets calculated by the gross floor area of the actual construction plans. You can’t have a building permit to proceed until (developers do get the choice between cash and units) but they do not get to pick the number because there is a formula that Stacy Pethia has it is worked out on a spreadsheet and you plug in the gross floor area and the formula tells you what the number is. Based on the square footages that are represented in the plans you are looking at it was 455,000 and 25 units. Commissioner Keller moved to recommend an approval of this amendment to special use permit SP- 13-10-19, but specifically subject to the conditions that the only amendment to this SUP is for the increased density at an residential density of 83 units per acre as proposed because I find that approval of this part of the request is required for the public necessity, convenience, general welfare of good zoning practice. The motion includes references to staff recommendation that the application 11 be approved with no other alteration through this motion to the conditions currently operable to the existing Special Use Permit on the site that was issued in 2014. The motion includes a recommendation for the conditions referenced in the staff report SUP revision dated 10/17/2017, and is subject to the updated conditions, Seconded by Commissioner Clayborne, motion passes to increase density only 5-1, (Commissioner Dowell voting no) IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Beginning: upon conclusion of all joint public hearings Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Site Plan & Subdivision - Water Street Promenade, Report by Missy Creasy, NDSAssistant Director Scott Collins of Collins Engineering, LLC, acting as agent for Riverbend Development, Inc. and Choco-Cruz, LLC, is requesting approval of a final site plan to amend the final site plan approved on December 22, 2015 for the Water Street Promenade development (Tax Map 57 Parcel157.A). The Planning Commission approved the preliminary site plan on August 12, 2014. Alan Taylor of Riverbend Development Inc. said the site plan amendment contains a substantial change from the preliminary site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission, and must be approved by the Planning Commission per Section 34-822(c)(1). The amended subdivision plat associated with the site plan amendment is also before the Planning Commission for approval. The square footage of the lot containing the coal tower has increased in size from 4000sf to 6638sf. Mr. Taylor proposes modifications to several sheets in the approved site plan (Sheets 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, and 20). The locations of information relevant to the modifications are underlined below under Site Plan Compliance. Substantial changes include: - Amending from 24 single family detached dwellings to 18 single family detached dwellings and six (6) single family attached dwellings. Mr. Ikefuna, Director of NDS, determined on May 25, 2017 that this modification does not violate the PUD Development Plan and is a minor change per Section 34-519(1). The PUD Development Plan approved by City Council on February 18, 2014 allows zero (0) foot side yard setbacks west of the Coal Tower, where the single family attached units are proposed. - Amending the minimum lot frontage west of the Coal Tower from 30 feet to 24 feet. - Mr. Ikefuna, Director of NDS, determined on May 25, 2017 that this modification does not violate the PUD Development Plan and is a minor change per Section 34-519(1). - Amending the utility plan to reflect the modification to the single family dwelling units. - Amending the stormwater management plan to include a dry detention pond. - The phasing plan is amended to three (3) phases from the approved two (2) phases. - The site plan was reviewed and met site plan requirement. Ashley Davies: said this is a very unique and unusual site. It has taken a very unique and creative vision to figure out this piece of leftover property that really wasn’t serving purpose and really transform it into a great urban streetscape that connects two parts of the city. She said half of those units are going up and four families have moved into the project. They have found after getting into the project that to be able to construct and maneuver in the site you actually needed a safe egress for folks that are going into the phase one section of the project. There is a section where the property narrows down so the phase one section has parking on the alley behind the units but as you get further west of the property it nets down so you really have the drive aisle behind the units. She said as we looked at the logistics of developing the site it became necessary that we needed another egress going forward but also architecturally the way the units are divided up, the west of the coal tower versus the east you get better groupings of units and you get better breaks 12 between where you have areas of landscape visual interest. She said the new layout works well and has been a good transition. We are basically just asking for this minor change in moving the one unit from one side to the other. She said they have been working with the Board of Architectural Review on the actual park design of the coal tower park to envision the preserving and protection of the coal tower. The project does have the affordable housing proffer that comes along with it. That is a total of a $100,000 going to the city affordable housing fund. Ms. Creasy said the drawings are labeled existing lots, and easement plats, and all of the square footages are different. She said when you start on page 7 of 13, you get to the actual changes. The first 7 pages are what is currently approved and the others are what are being proposed; 4,900 square feet. Commission Lahendro: asked why is the open space now subdivided in 3 categories - a b and c. Ashley Davies: she said she asked the engineer today because it did not seem to make sense to her either. He took her back to the original PUD document had open spaces a b and c on them. The reasoning behind that is so it would match the original PUD documents. It doesn’t serve any additional purpose. There were three areas of open space in the approved PUD document plan that went with the PUD so the actual play is just matching. Commission Lahendro: said we have 6 attached dwelling lots, how will the large unit be architecturally treated as a one unit with 6 doors. Ashley Davies: said the units are quite close to one another so you experience them as attached row houses even though they have a slight detachment between them. The idea of the attached units is they will still carry on the same row house unique individual style as if you were in the capitol hill area of D.C. They will still read as individual highly crafted units, the same as the architectural nature that was approved in the original PUD. Alan Taylor: said the interior floor plan is identically the same, they are being smashed together. They are six feet apart right now and we are removing the six feet, but we will still articulate them and will carry the exact same theme down. The idea was to come from somewhere further away from the mall and create a little more urban product as you get closer to the mall. Commissioner Lahendro: said the frontage of the coal tower has been decreased to 94 feet from 78 feet on the street, and he doesn’t see a plan to show how much that squeezes the appearance of the coal tower. Ms. Davies: showed them the concept plans designed by the Board of Architectural Review with a 78 foot frontage as it will exist. Commissioners were a little troubled because this concept plan was not in their packet for them to review prior to the meeting. Commissioner Santoski moved to approve the final site plan as submitted, seconded Commissioner Clayborne, 6-0. 2. Appeal – Erosion & Sediment Determination – Marty Silman, David Frazier a. Woodland Drive, Dickerson Homes and Development, LLC (Beau Dickerson, Member) Appeal Procedures 13 Appeals from decisions made by staff pursuant to the Water Protection Ordinance are governed by City Code §10-8. Initially, each appeal must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and findings of fact. The Planning Commission is required to review the appeal at its next regular meeting following the date of the notice of appeal, and report its findings of fact to City Council in timely fashion (City Council is required to review the appeal itself, within 30 days after the PC Meeting). Attached as Exhibit F are the Findings of Fact that the City’s VESCP/ VSMP Administrator request the Planning Commission to make. Stop Work Order—On October 27, 2017, City staff issued a Stop Work Order (SWO) to the Landowner (attached as Exhibit D) to provide notice of the E&S and Stormwater violations, and to put the owner on notice of requirements in accordance with Chapter 10 of the City Code (Water Protection Ordinance), which contains both the City’s Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Program (VESCP) regulations and the City’s Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) regulations. The SWO was issued by the City’s VESCP/VSMP Administrator, after reviewing the condition of the site, based on observations of staff at that time. Notice of Appeal: On November 9, 2017, the owner gave notice of this appeal. A copy of the Appeal Notice is attached as Exhibit E. The Appeal Notice lists four statements in support of the appeal. The City’s response to each statement is provided below: 1. Statement: “Approximately 1pm on Friday, the 27th of October, Mr. David Frazier inspected the subdivision commonly known as Oak Lawn. Attached are photos showing the site at 1pm on the 27th of October taken by Mr. Frazier. Mr. Frazier did not contact me to discuss the goings on at the site he simply sent a Stop work order, which is within his right, I received the order through email at 3:15pm on the 27th of Staff’s Recommendation Staff recommends that, by motion, the Planning Commission should make the findings of fact referenced in Exhibit F. Commissioner Santoski moved that this Planning Commission should make the following findings of fact set forth in Exhibit F to the Staff Report for this appeal, and that we refer those finding to City Council, Seconded by Commissioner Dowell, motion passes 6-0. Adjournment: 8:20 pm 14 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: January 9, 2018 APPLICATION NUMBER: P17-0161 Author of Staff Report: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: December 22, 2017 Project Name: Carlton Views II Tax Map Parcel ID No. 560043100 Applicant: Hydro Falls LLC, Attn: Bernard Harkless Jr. Applicant’s Representative: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Applicable City Code Provisions: 34-800 – 34-827 (Site Plans) Zoning District: M-I (Manufacturing Industrial) with a Special Use Overlay Date of Preliminary Site Plan Submission: September 13, 2017 Date of Site Plan Review Conference: October 4, 2017 Reason for Planning Commission Review: All Site Plans associated with a Special Use Designation are subject to review by the Planning Commission. Vicinity Map 1 Legal Standard of Review Approval of a site plan is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a site plan that complies with the requirements of the City’s Site Plan Ordinance, then approval of the plan must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a site plan, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the plan, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a site plan, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the plan. Executive Summary Bernard Harkless, with Hydro Falls LLC (property owner) is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan for a (48) unit apartment building that has road frontage on Carlton Avenue. The Site Plan proposes to build (48) one and two bedroom apartments on an undeveloped lot. This is phase III of the development plan (phase I was the PACE Center and phase II was Carlton Views Apartments). The proposed building is four stories and approximately (39,147) square feet. The subject parcel is identified on City Real Property Tax Map 56 Parcel 431. The site is zoned M-I (Industrial) with a Special Use Permit overlay and is approximately 0.527 acres. The Land Use Plan calls for Business and Technology. This parcel is part of an SUP that was approved by City Council on September 16, 2013. Site Plan Compliance The preliminary site plan went through two rounds of review and the applicant has addressed comments to the satisfaction of staff. Outstanding comments referenced in the Comment Letter dated December 21, 2017 will be addressed with final site plan submittal. Site plans are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of site plan requirements and the location of those items on the site plan are outlined below. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation M-I District (per Zoning Ordinance §34-440 - - §34-480) The property was originally rezoned Industrial in 1976 and a Special Use Permit to allow residential units was approved September 16, 2013. The preliminary site plan complies with §34-440 through §34-480. 2 B. Section 34-82 Preliminary Site Plan requirements: 1. The name of the development; names of the owner(s), developer(s) and individual(s) who prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; zoning district classification(s); descriptions of all variances, zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; description of affordable dwelling unit requirements applicable to the subject property pursuant to section 34-12(a) or section 34- 12(d)(1); city and state; north point; scale; one (1) datum reference for elevation (where a flood hazard overlay district is involved, U.S. Geological Survey vertical datum shall be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); source of the topography; source of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date of drawing; date and description of latest revision; zoning district, tax map and parcel number, and present use, of each adjacent parcel; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building separation requirements; a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. Sheet 1. 2. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use, including: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use; maximum number of dwelling units by type; gross residential density; square footage of recreation area(s); percent and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for non-residential uses; maximum lot coverage; maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking, including maximum amount required and amount provided; maximum amount of impervious cover on the site; and if a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. Sheet 1. 3. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development; Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 4. Existing topography for the entire site at maximum five-foot contours; proposed grading (maximum two-foot contours), supplemented where necessary by spot elevations; and sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50) feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the director. Topographic information submitted with a preliminary plat shall be in the form of a topographic survey, which shall identify areas of critical slopes, as defined in section 29-3, natural streams, natural drainage areas, and other topographic features of the site. Sheet 2. 5. Existing landscape features as described in section 34-867 (requirements of landscape plans), including all individual trees of six (6) inch caliper or greater. Sheet 2. 6. The name and location of all watercourses, waterways, wetlands and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. N/A. 3 7. One hundred-year flood plain limits, as shown on the official flood insurance maps for the City of Charlottesville, as well as the limits of all floodway areas and base flood elevation data required by section 34-253. Sheet 1. 8. Existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley easements and rights-of- way, and other vehicular travelways, together with street names, highway route numbers, right-of-way lines and widths, centerline radii, and pavement widths. Sheets 1 through 6. 9. Location and size of drainage channels, and existing and proposed drainage easements; and a stormwater management concept detailing how the applicant will achieve adequate drainage post-development, including a description of the specific design concept the applicant plans to apply. N/A. 10. Location and size of existing water, sanitary and storm sewer facilities and easements, and proposed conceptual layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and public storm sewer facilities. Sheets 1 through 3. 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. Sheets 1 through 6. 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. Sheet 5. 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements, including: buildings (maximum footprint and height) and other structures (principal as well as accessory); walkways; fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting; landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas; loading and service areas, together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and driveways. Sheet 3. 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. Sheet 3. 15. Landscape plan, in accordance with section 34-867, if the proposed site plan is subject to entrance corridor review. N/A. 16. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development, estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current VDOT rates, indicating the estimated vehicles per day and the direction of travel for all connections to a public road. N/A. C. Additional information needed for review. Per §34-974 the applicant has requested a reduction in parking through the use of a cooperative parking arrangement. The director of NDS has granted preliminary approval of the cooperative parking arrangement contingent on final site plan approval. 4 D. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, City Code, Chapter 10: City Code §34-828(d)(6)(g) requires information, details, calculations, plans and other documents or data required by Chapter 10 City Code for an erosion and sediment control plan. These materials will be reviewed by the City’s VESCP staff during final site plan review. Per City Code §10-36(5) no land disturbing activity will be authorized to be commenced unless and until a property owner obtains approval of a (final) site plan. E. Compliance with Additional Standards for Specific Uses (Site Plan Ordinance §§34- 930 - 34-938) City Code §34-828(d)(6)(f) requires information, details, calculations, construction plans and other materials required by City Code Chapter 10 for a final SWM Plan to be included with a proposed final site plan. The applicant will submit the required components for a proposed final SWM Plan with their final site plan. In accordance with City Code §10-9(c) , no authorization or permit for any construction, land use or development involving any land disturbing activity, including any grading / building / foundation / demolition or other development permit, will be issued until a final SWM Plan has been approved. Public Comments Received A Site Plan Review Conference was held on October 4, 2017 and was attended by one (1) member of the public. Parking and adequate public transpiration options were concerns raised. The attendee was concerned with the reduction in parking that the applicant was requesting. The attendee did not want onsite parking to impact employee parking causing additional parking on the street and the surrounding neighborhood. Having a bus stop convenient to the existing apartment building and the proposed apartment building was also a concern. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan with the following condition x All outstanding comments from the Comment Letter dated December 21, 2017 are addressed during final site plan review. Attachments a. Preliminary Site Plan Dated December 21, 2017 b. Comment Letter Dated December 21, 2017 c. Cooperative parking Plan Dated September 6, 2017 d. SUP Resolution Dated September 16, 2013 5 Attachment a Attachment a Attachment a Attachment a Attachment a Attachment a Attachment b C I TY O F CHA R LO T TESV I LLE “A World Class City” Neighborhood Development Services 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org December 21, 2017 Scott Collins, P.E. Collins Engineering 200 Garrett Street Suite K Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Carlton Views II (TMP 560043100) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN Dear Scott, The above referenced preliminary site plan was submitted to the office for an initial round of review on September 13, 2017 and a 2nd round of review on November 27, 2017. Staff will place the preliminary site plan on the January 9, 2018 Planning Commission agenda for approval. As a condition of this approval please find below a list of revisions that must be reflected on any Final Site Plan for this project. 1. Comments from Hugh Blake, Engineer, are attached. 2. Comments from Mandy Brown, Traffic Engineering, are attached. 3. Comments from Matt Alfele, City Planner, are attached. 4. Comments from Zack Lofton, ADA Coordinator, are attached. Please email me a PDF of the Preliminary Site Plan dated 12/21/17 and the Cooperative Parking Plan dated 9/6/17 to alfelem@charlottesville.org Sincerely yours, Matt Alfele Page 1 of 4 Attachment b C: Collins Engineering, Attn: Scott Collins, P.E., scott@collins-engineering.com Hydro Falls LLC, Attn: Bernard Harkless, Jr., bharkless@fountainheadrva.com 7 E 2nd Street Richmond, VA 23224 Missy Creasy Hugh Blake Mandy Brown Tom Elliott Zack Lofton Roy Nester Christian Chirico W.J. Sclafani Stephen Walton Page 2 of 4 Attachment b City Staff have made a good faith effort to identify all deficiencies within September 13, 2017 and November 27, 2017 submissions; however, in the event that there remains any other deficiency which, if left uncorrected, would violate local, state or federal law, regulations, or mandatory engineering and safety requirements, such other deficiency shall not be considered, treated or deemed as having been approved. These comments are based on the current submission; future submissions may generate additional comments. The following items need to be addressed in the revised site plan: Be advised that major changes to the site plan may result in new comments not reflected in this review Engineering City Engineer – Hugh Blake SHEET 1 1. Dedicate all areas to back of sidewalk to City right-of-way. SHEET 2 1. Provide effective date of FIRM panel cited. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT REPORT 1. Provide pre-redevelopment and post-redevelopment analysis for this parcel (0.527 acres), any areas in the right-of-way that are disturbed, and off-parcel areas disturbed (Pace Center). (The watershed analysis—within existing roadway—can be retained for verifying capacity of stormwater management inlets in final engineering.) Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineer – Mandy Brown 1. All plantings within the sight triangle must be clear between 18” and 6’. This requirement still allows for the required street trees per §34-870 and §34- 1121(b)(2). Keep these code sections in mind when preparing the landscape plan for the final site plan. Planning City Planner – Matt Alfele Cooperative & Reduced Parking Plan 1. The Director of NDS has reviewed the proposed cooperative plan and finds it generally acceptable. Prior to final site plan approval the Director must review and Page 3 of 4 Attachment b approve a long-term lease, recorded easement, or other appropriate document per §39-974(a) to ensure the cooperative agreement is in place and long-term. ADA ADA Coordinator – Zack Lofton 1. Remove the tactile strip on the sidewalk near the accessible aisle. They are used to notify pedestrians they are entering a carriageway not an accessible aisle. Page 4 of 4 ~- • • ·-- --· --·----- -- ...._ ~- -- 7~ .. -~· ·---~···------ - -- ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - SISAlVNY !>Nlll1jYd 03Jna~~ • iWiYl0dOOJ - • - • U SM31/1 N0l1~Y.) 0 L lf•l./•I ' "i'.3U.JQIV _ § C ~ j> , • .,. Jil.. -P-t" ''" fl? ••..._,..._,,. ··~- ..... ..,............,,... - :::=- S NOISl i\311 ~ - => N I l::1 3 3 N I => N 3 S N I I I 0 :> ~ ~ ·, ~,.I li,l&·ll1l;iil1J 1li l.111i i·1lli~111i1i'll11illtJi:iifil 1l I§~ • ~ 1. lfo r! ~•! I~ ilJ~! I .• .• :I !1111~.! ,,!111 It• ,~i :iji•I ,~1'·1'1i' 1l •J ii•;! 1 •: "°' l!lll~!ll!l~ll~lliiliill!llli1iilliii1!!l~l~!l~1 :I . . .. . . .!i : ,l !~--,,.l 'I ~~ ~I ~I ;.I , • :..I ..: I :i ;j., Attachment c li ' ~l f 5 1 ... I ' I I I L ' Attachment d SP-13-02-05 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVED ON MAY 20, 2013 FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1335 CARLTON AVENUE TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL USE OF UP TO 21 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON PARCELS 43, 43.1 AND 43.2 ON CITY TAX MAP 56. WHEREAS, Hydro Falls LLC and ADC IV Charlottesville LLC (“Applicant”) requested a special use permit for a residential density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) on property identified on City Tax Map 56 as Parcels 43, 43.1 and 43.2, at 1335 Carlton Avenue, consisting of approximately 4.855 acres (hereafter the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently zoned M-I (Manufacturing-Industrial); and pursuant to City Code section 34-480, residential density of up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA) is allowed by special use permit; WHEREAS, following a joint public hearing before this Council and the Planning Commission, duly advertised and held on May 14, 2013, City Council issued a special use permit on May 20, 2013 for residential density of up to 21 DUA for City Tax Map Parcels 56-43.1 (Lot A) and 56-43.2 (Lot B), but deferred action on approval of such use for City Tax Map Parcel 56- 43 (Lot C); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made modifications to the proposed project and revised its preliminary site plan to address the concerns expressed by City Council on May 20, 2013; and has requested that the aforesaid Special Use Permit be amended to include Lot C (TMP 56-43); now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that the Special Use Permit granted to Hydro Falls LLC and ADC IV Charlottesville LLC on May 20, 2013 to allow residential density of up to 21 DUA on property identified on City Tax Map 56 as Parcel 43.1 and Parcel 43.2 (Lots A and B), currently addressed as 1335 Carlton Avenue, is hereby amended to include City Tax Map Parcel 56-43 (Lot C) as part of the lands subject to the aforesaid Special Use Permit, allowing residential density of up to 21 DUA cumulatively. All conditions previously imposed, as listed below, shall now apply to Lots A, B and C. 1. The maximum height of buildings on the property shall not exceed 50 feet. 2. A minimum of 30% affordable housing, defined as residents earning up to 60% of area median income, shall be included on the site. 3. The number of bedrooms in any dwelling unit on the site shall not exceed 3 bedrooms. 4. An entrance feature shall be incorporated into all buildings that front on Carlton Avenue. 5. Parking provided shall not exceed the minimum required by City Code. The excess number of spaces shown on the plan submitted to the Planning Commission on May 14, 2013 shall be converted to the same amount of open space. Attachment d 6. Full cutoff luminaires shall be used and shall be equipped with devices for redirecting light such as shields, visors, or hoods to eliminate the luminaire glare and block direct illumination from neighboring properties. The fixture shall completely conceal and recess the light source from all viewing positions except those positions permitted to receive illumination. Directional luminaires such as floodlights, spotlights, and sign lights shall illuminate only the task and do not shine directly onto neighboring properties, roadways, or distribute excessive light skyward. 7. Applicant shall work with Charlottesville Area Transit to facilitate appropriate transit connections for residents. 8. Existing trees greater than 6” in caliper in the open space area on the east side of the site shall be retained. 9. Pedestrian linkages shall be provided between buildings, open space on site, and the neighborhood. Approved by Council September 16, 2013 Clerk of Council City of Charlottesville City Manager’s Office MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst CC: Maurice Jones, City Manager Leslie Beauregard, Assistant City Manager Alex Ikefuna, Director, N.D.S. City Council DATE: December 1, 2017 SUBJECT: F.Y. 2019 – 2023 Proposed Capital Improvement Program Presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration is the Proposed F.Y. 2019 - 2023 Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). The proposed C.I.P. contains revenues and expenses totaling $24,125,313 in F.Y. 2019, a decrease of 17.23% from F.Y. 2018. The 5-year total for the F.Y. 2019 - 2023 Proposed C.I.P. is $114,227,860, an increase of 7.35% from the 5-year total projected in the F.Y. 2018 - 2022 Adopted C.I.P. The General Fund contribution to the C.I.P. in F.Y. 2019 is proposed at $7,574,766 a $2.4 million dollar increase from F.Y. 2018. While the amount of revenue proposed to come from bond sales for F.Y. 2019 is projected to decrease by $6.5 million from the F.Y. 2018 amount, the 5-year total amount of revenue from bond sales in the F.Y. 2019 – 2023 C.I.P. is projected to increase by $4.68 million from what was projected in the F.Y. 2018 – 2022 Adopted C.I.P. Some of the new projects and projects that are proposed for increases in the F.Y. 2019 – 2023 C.I.P. include: Avon Street fueling station replacement; Downtown pedestrian intersection lighting; undergrounding utilities; Bypass Fire Station; new sidewalks; City/County joint parks projects at Darden Towe and Ivy Creek; School small capital improvement program; Washington Park basketball court renovations; Riverview Park restrooms; Senior Center at Belvedere; and Citywide ADA improvements – sidewalks and curbs. As has been the case in recent years, preparing for this five-year plan was most challenging. What is being presented to the Planning Commission reflects what we know at this time regarding the City’s total revenue and expenditure needs for F.Y. 2019. Until staff has a complete picture for the total budget, including how City revenues are projected to perform in F.Y. 2019 and how expenditure needs will be balanced with 1 available revenue, the 5 year C.I.P. will remain a work in progress and could see adjustments between now and when the Proposed Budget is presented to City Council in March. The proposed C.I.P. as presented continues to address many of the City’s growing capital needs while staying within our current debt policy limit: Debt service as a percentage of the general fund total expenditure budget has a ceiling of 10%, with a target of 9%. Staff has been and will continue to analyze very closely the City’s debt limit, and more specifically what the City can afford to borrow for capital needs, in order to inform future debt discussions with City Council. Staff looks forward to the upcoming discussion with the Planning Commission on this draft 5 year plan. If you have questions or need more information before the Planning Commission meeting, please don’t hesitate to contact Ryan Davidson, Senior Budget and Management Analyst (davidson@charlottesville.org). Materials for January 9th P.C. Public Hearing In preparation for the January 9th Planning Commission public hearing, attached is information on the Proposed F.Y. 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). Staff will give a short Power Point presentation followed by a question/answer session. Attachment I – F.Y. 2019-2023 Proposed C.I.P. Attachment II – Proposed F.Y. 2019 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Attachment III – F.Y. 2019-2023 Unfunded C.I.P. Projects List Attachment IV – School Facilities and City Facilities Capital Project Detail Attachment V – Project Request Forms Attachment VI – Capital Improvement Program Code Requirements 2 Attachment I F.Y. 2019 – 2023 Proposed C.I.P. Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2019-2023 Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Revenues Transfer from General Fund 5,165,164 7,574,766 7,824,766 8,074,766 8,324,766 8,574,766 40,373,830 Transfer from CIP Contingency 1,050,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contribution from Albemarle County (CATEC) 75,000 75,000 75,000 500,000 90,000 62,500 802,500 Contribution from Albemarle County (Central and Gordon 0 137,500 175,000 0 0 0 312,500 Ave. Library) Contribution from Schools (Small Cap Program) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 PEG Fee Revenue 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 237,500 CY 2018 Bond Issue 22,610,129 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 2019 Bond Issue 0 16,090,547 0 0 0 0 16,090,547 CY 2020 Bond Issue 0 0 20,040,623 0 0 0 20,040,623 CY 2021 Bond Issue 0 0 0 19,734,603 0 0 19,734,603 CY 2022 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 10,457,582 0 10,457,582 CY 2023 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 0 5,178,175 5,178,175 TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUES $29,147,793 $24,125,313 $28,362,889 $28,556,869 $19,119,848 $14,062,941 $114,227,860 Expenditures BONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Lump Sum to Schools (City Contribution) 1,076,856 1,109,162 1,142,437 1,176,710 1,212,011 1,248,371 5,888,691 City Schools HVAC Replacement 489,250 503,928 519,046 534,617 550,656 567,176 2,675,423 CHS Track 1,666,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 CCS Priority Improvement Projects 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 SUBTOTAL $4,232,306 $2,613,090 $2,661,483 $2,711,327 $2,762,667 $2,815,547 $13,564,114 FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,545,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 5,727,455 City Facility HVAC Replacement 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 City and Schools Solar PV Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 4th Street Yard Fuel Tank Replacement 381,500 200,000 0 0 0 0 581,500 Avon Street Fueling Station Replacement 0 520,000 0 0 0 0 520,000 SUBTOTAL 1,726,991 2,065,491 $1,345,491 $1,845,491 $1,345,491 $1,345,491 $7,947,455 1 11/30/2017 PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Circuit Court Renovation 4,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 General District Court 0 0 3,181,014 3,181,014 0 0 6,362,028 Police Portable Radio Replacement 342,621 342,621 0 0 0 0 342,621 Police Entry Canopy and Lobby Renovation (Design) 0 0 57,000 0 0 0 57,000 Replacement Fire Apparatus 0 1,298,586 684,904 1,471,973 0 0 3,455,463 Bypass Fire Station 0 0 3,700,000 0 0 0 3,700,000 SUBTOTAL $4,342,621 $1,641,207 $7,622,918 $4,652,987 $0 $0 $13,917,112 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Undergrounding Utilities 95,000 1,300,000 1,700,000 1,430,000 0 0 4,430,000 New Sidewalks 206,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 1,900,000 West Main Improvements 3,250,000 3,250,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 10,250,000 SIA Immediate Implementation 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 Small Area Plans 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Street Milling and Paving 1,531,882 1,577,838 1,625,173 1,673,928 1,724,146 1,775,870 8,376,955 Belmont Bridge - State Revenue Sharing Match 4,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Structure 0 0 0 4,875,000 5,125,000 0 10,000,000 ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 1,200,000 Downtown Pedestrian Intersection Lighting 0 94,000 94,000 0 0 0 188,000 SUBTOTAL $11,460,382 $7,141,838 $8,339,173 $11,898,928 $7,769,146 $2,695,870 $37,844,955 PARKS AND RECREATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total McIntire Park Master Plan Implementation 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation 750,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 750,000 Pen Park Tennis Court Renovations 260,000 295,000 0 0 0 0 295,000 City/County Joint Parks - Darden Towe 0 1,101,359 255,592 193,370 0 0 1,550,321 City/County Joint Parks - Ivy Creek 0 292,100 20,000 0 0 0 312,100 Washington Park Basketball Court Renovations 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 SUBTOTAL $1,510,000 $2,588,459 $275,592 $193,370 $0 $0 $3,057,421 TOTAL BONDABLE PROJECTS $23,272,300 $16,050,085 $20,244,657 $21,302,103 $11,877,304 $6,856,908 $87,489,471 2 11/30/2017 NONBONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total School Small Capital Improvements Program 200,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000 SUBTOTAL $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Economic Development Strategic Initiatives 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 SUBTOTAL $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 TRANSPORTATION & ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Sidewalk Repair 412,000 424,360 437,091 450,204 463,710 477,621 2,252,986 State Bridge and Highway Inspections 121,137 121,137 121,137 121,137 121,137 121,137 605,685 Minor Bridge Repairs 206,000 212,180 218,545 225,101 231,854 238,810 1,126,490 CAT Transit Bus Replacement Match 156,762 4,600 122,800 112,960 119,120 50,040 409,520 Intelligent Transportation System 95,000 97,850 100,786 103,810 106,924 110,132 519,502 City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements 95,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Neighborhood Transportation Improvements 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks and Curbs 97,850 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Bicycle Infrastructure 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 NDS Permit Tracking Software Replacement 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 Historic Resources Preservation Program 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right of Way Appurtenance 0 150,000 154,500 159,135 163,909 168,826 796,370 SUBTOTAL $1,733,749 $1,810,127 $1,704,859 $1,722,347 $1,756,654 $1,716,566 $8,710,553 PARKS & RECREATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,001 1,000,001 Parks and Schools Playground Renovations 255,896 109,073 112,345 115,715 119,186 122,762 579,081 Trails and Greenway Development 79,422 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Downtown Mall Tree Preservation Planning 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Urban Tree Preservation and Planting 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 325,000 Parkland Acquisition 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 95,000 475,000 Refurbish Parks Restrooms 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 150,000 Riverview Park Restroom 0 0 245,000 0 0 0 245,000 SUBTOTAL $680,318 $704,073 $852,345 $635,715 $589,186 $592,763 $3,374,082 STORMWATER INITIATIVES Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Neighborhood Drainage Projects 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 SUBTOTAL $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $625,000 3 11/30/2017 TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Total Communications Technology Account/Public Access 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 47,500 237,500 City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 SUBTOTAL $47,500 $297,500 $297,500 $297,500 $297,500 $297,500 $1,487,500 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Total Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund 2,499,602 3,399,204 3,399,204 3,399,204 3,399,204 3,399,204 16,996,020 Public Housing Redevelopment 250,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 Home Energy Conservation Grant Program 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000 Senior Center at Belvedere 0 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 1,200,000 PVCC Advanced Technology Center 64,324 64,324 64,324 0 0 0 128,648 SUBTOTAL $2,938,926 $4,688,528 $4,688,528 $4,024,204 $4,024,204 $4,024,204 $21,449,668 TOTAL NONBONDABLE PROJECTS $5,875,493 $8,075,228 $8,118,232 $7,254,766 $7,242,544 $7,206,033 $33,388,492 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $29,147,793 $24,125,313 $28,362,889 $28,556,869 $19,119,848 $14,062,941 $114,227,860 4 11/30/2017 Attachment II Proposed F.Y. 2019 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Proposed F.Y. 2019 C.I.P. Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Revenue Summary Total proposed revenues for F.Y. 2019, $24,125,313, are broken down as follows: 1) The General Fund transfer to the Capital Fund is proposed at a total of $7,574,766. 2) A contribution from Albemarle County of $212,500 for the County’s portion of expenses related to facility improvements at C.A.T.E.C. and the Central Library. 3) The annual $200,000 contribution from the Charlottesville City Schools for their Small Capital Improvement Program. There is a corresponding expenditure for this purpose. 4) P.E.G. Fee revenue of $47,500 which is received as part of the franchise agreement with Comcast. 5) The $16,090,547 in bond revenue, part of a bond issuance that will take place during C.Y. 2018 to pay for those projects deemed bondable. Expenditure Summary Bondable Projects Total expenditures for the F.Y. 2019 Bondable projects, $16,050,085, are broken down as follows: Education 1) Lump Sum to Schools Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,109,162 This sum is the yearly appropriation to the City Schools for their Capital Program. Some of the items proposed to be covered by this appropriation include: Buford building envelope restoration and auditorium improvements; Clark restroom renovations; Walker auditorium improvements; and Interior Painting - Systemwide. The balance for the lump sum to schools account as of November 30, 2017 is $1,344,927. 2) Schools H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed F.Y. 19 – $503,928 Facilities Maintenance has developed a 20-year plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure 1 1/2/2018 becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy-efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $283,318. 3) C.C.S. Priority Improvements Projects Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,000,000 School's Facility Improvement Planning Committee (FIPC) met and selected the following project “themes”, as the top CCS project priorities. And then on September 1, 2016, the School Board reviewed and formally approved the “themes” and the phasing plan. *Classroom Modernization *Corridor Improvements *Daylighting *Auditorium Renovations *Cafeteria Renovations On September 21, 2017, the School's Facility Improvement Planning Committee (FIPC) met and selected Classroom Modernizations as the highest priority project. The Committee recommended that work begin in the 4th grade classrooms, at all six elementary schools. The general scope of work could include: new flooring, ceiling replacement with new LED light fixtures, furniture (flexible), paint – including accent colors & white board paint (dry erase) for select walls, casework/cubbies/classroom storage/coat racks, daylighting- windows/solar tubes/light shelves/etc., technology upgrades, acoustic treatments, window treatments, minor electrical & HVAC work. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $15,712. Facilities Capital Improvements 1) Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,045,491 In F.Y. 2018, Facilities Capital Projects requested a lump sum of $1,045,491 in order to fund improvements and repairs to various City owned facilities. These include: C.A.T.E.C. parking lot milling and paving; Restroom and A.D.A. renovations at the Central Library; Police Department interior renovations; Preston-Morris Building window and exterior door replacement; and any other repairs deemed to be necessary in order to preserve the City’s properties. The balance for lump sum to facilities account as of November 30, 2017 is $2,054,470. 2) City Building H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed F.Y. 19 – $200,000 Facilities Maintenance has developed a plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment in City Facilities. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy- efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $181,795. 3) City and Schools Solar P.V. Program Proposed F.Y. 19 – $100,000 This project is the phased installation of solar photovoltaic panels on the roofs of various City and school facilities. Upon completion of the first system the City will begin to generate some of the electricity need to run its facilities and with energy costs rising at an average of 8% per year, the City will realize immediate savings. The Public Works Facilities Maintenance division has positioned itself to design and self-install solar P.V. 2 1/2/2018 systems at approximately half the cost of outsourcing enabling a quicker return on investment (R.O.I.) for the project. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $250,121. 4) 4th Street Yard Fuel Tank Replacement Proposed F.Y. 19 – $200,000 The project is the replacements of four underground fuel tanks and pumps, six dispensing pumps and overhead canopy, with an above ground tank system. The current system was installed in 1976 with single steel wall tanks. New tank requirements (DEQ) require double wall tanks. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $301,005. 5) Avon Street Fueling Station Replacement Proposed F.Y. 19 – $520,000 This capital funding request is to replace the fueling station in the Avon Street PW's Yard. The new station will meet all current regulatory requirements and will include a new 20,000-gallon aboveground tank (compartmentalized to provide storage for gasoline and diesel), fuel-dispensing equipment on a raised island, and an overhead canopy. Public Safety and Justice 1) Police Portable Radio Replacement Proposed F.Y. 19 – $342,621 Funds are for the phased in replacement of Portable Police Radios as they will reach the end of support life in October of 2018. They cannot be repaired and must be replaced based on age at that time. Radios must be replaced to avoid the possibility of inventory failure. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $342,621. 2) Replacement Fire Apparatus Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,298,586 This is the replacement of a Fire Department pumper truck which was originally placed in service in 2000. The fire-rescue apparatus replacement schedule has been revised to more accurately reflect the equipment life cycles and also expanded to include the addition of ambulances. With an expanded role in EMS service delivery, the City will need to phase in the acquisition of a total of four ambulances over the next three years. The purchase of one ambulance is included in the F.Y. 19 amount and the cost includes the necessary tools and materials needed to equip the truck and place it in service. Transportation and Access 1) Undergrounding Utilities Proposed F.Y. 19 - $1,300,000 This project provides funding to allow the City to take advantage of strategic opportunities to partner with developers and other City projects to underground utilities on public rights-of-way. In past years, this has worked out to essentially a doubling of funds used to underground electric, phone and cable lines. The State CTB has recently awarded the City successful applications for several major transportation projects, 3 1/2/2018 including the Downtown Mall area, the Strategic Investment Area, Emmet Street, Barracks Road, and High Street. However these funds cannot be spent on betterment improvements like undergrounding overhead utilities. These funds would allow for undergrounding of utilities in conjunction with these improvement projects. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $514,304. 2) New Sidewalks Proposed F.Y. 19 - $380,000 This funding continues to remedy the gaps that remain throughout the sidewalk infrastructure of the City. Priority is given to completing the sidewalk network around schools, parks, business centers and community amenities such as libraries, post offices, etc. Sidewalk construction often includes upgrade of ADA ramps, installation of drainage systems, minor road improvements and other items to ensure that the best possible alignment and location is chosen. Project locations will be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/sidewalks The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $431,722. 3) West Main Improvements Proposed F.Y. 19 - $3,250,000 Funding of a significant urban design and streetscape improvement project for the West Main Street Improvements that will include changes to the street profile, undergrounding utilities, green infrastructure, trees and street furniture. For more information on this project please visit: http://gowestmain.com/ The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $4,441,605. 4) S.I.A. Immediate Implementation Proposed F.Y. 19 - $250,000 This funding is intended to facilitate completion of projects outlined in the Strategic Investment Area Plan completed in December, 2013. Examples of capital projects in the plan include 2nd Street Extension to Ix Building with improved streetscape, daylighting of Pollacks Branch, improved connectivity and walkability, and improvement to the Monticello Avenue streetscape. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/strategic-investment-area-7079 The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $651,512. 5) Street Milling and Paving Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,577,838 These funds will be used to repair street problems that occur during the year, such as potholes, and support additional street milling and paving projects that are a major part of maintaining the City’s aging infrastructure. This is also part of a dollar match for the over $2,000,000 received from V.D.O.T. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $2,366,179. 4 1/2/2018 6) Small Area Plans Proposed F.Y. 19 - $50,000 The Comprehensive Plan identified several specific areas of the city where planning and design issues or investment opportunities may warrant additional study through the development of specific small area plans in the coming years. The small area planning process is intended to examine areas anew and holistically, with the full engagement of the public, elected and appointed officials and planning professionals. The resulting small area plans will provide the basis for future planning, urban design, investment decisions, and possible changes to zoning and the future land use plan. The Planning Commission selected the Cherry Avenue corridor as a top priority with Hydraulic/29 and Woolen Mills as the next considerations. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $227,866. 7) ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades Proposed F.Y. 19 - $240,000 These funds seek to comply with requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide access to the sidewalk and street crossing network. A study of the city's signalized intersections conducted by Timmons Group in 2015 identified over $1.1 million dollars in deficiencies related to pedestrian access - including curb ramp improvements and access to pedestrian pushbuttons. This project aims to increase ADA access at those intersections. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $240,000. 8) Downtown Pedestrian Intersection Lighting Proposed F.Y. 19 - $94,000 This request is for funding to install pedestrian lighting at 15 intersections that were identified in an earlier joint study conducted by the City and UVA. The Downtown Intersections identified were at Market Street and its intersection with 2nd Street SW, 1st Street N, 2nd Street NE, 3rd Street NE, 4th Street NE, 5th Street NE, 6th Street NE, 7th Street NE, 8th Street NE, and 2nd Street SW, and at Water Street and its intersection with 2nd Street SW, 1st Street S, 2nd Street SE, 3rd Street SE, 4th Street SE, and 5th Street SE. Parks and Recreation 1) Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation Proposed F.Y. 19 – $750,000 This is a phased in development and implementation of the Tonsler Park Master plan. Lighting upgrades on basketball courts, court renovation and walking trail have been completed. The City will be demolishing the old concession building in order to allow space for the Fieldhouse. The design and construction of a field house and enclosing of the back porch with conversion to program and support spaces is projected for design and construction with opening in the spring of FY 20 (March of calendar 2020). For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/tonslerpark The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $1,257,855. 5 1/2/2018 2) Pen Park Tennis Court Renovations Proposed F.Y. 19 – $295,000 This project will completely reconstruct the eight (8) tennis courts at Pen Park. Currently, staff has repaired several fractures in the courts, and the court surface is experiencing root intrusion cracking and heaving from a line of white pine trees on the east side of the courts. The current condition of the courts requires a complete renovation of the courts, pouring new net post footers, applying new asphalt and color coat and lining the courts and replacement of the perimeter fence. The current courts are effectively unrepairable, becoming a safety hazard and past the end of their service life. Additionally, staff anticipates a redesign of the courts to eliminate some penetrations in the asphalt that contribute to cracking. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $260,000 3) City/County Joint Parks – Darden Towe Proposed F.Y. 19 – $1,101,359 This will establish a funding stream for those recreational properties and facilities that are jointly operated by the City and Albemarle County, specifically Darden Towe Park. The establishment of such funding will permit the systematic and proactive replacement and renovation of these facilities. FY 19 projects would include: road and parking lot resurfacing, new restroom facility, and synthetic turf and lighting of 4 rectangular fields. Costs reflected represent only the City's portion of the anticipated cost of the projects. The current cost share agreement with the County is based upon total aggregated population of the City and County and appropriate percentages. The current formula is City 31.7 %, County 68.3 %. Funding for projects at this park has been requested in the past several cycles but yet to be funded. 4) City/County Joint Parks – Ivy Creek Proposed F.Y. 19 – $292,100 This will establish a funding stream for those recreational properties and facilities that are jointly operated by the City and Albemarle County, specifically Ivy Creek Natural Area. The establishment of such funding will permit the systematic and proactive replacement and renovation of these facilities. FY 19 projects would include: tenant house restoration, trail paving, and entry and parking improvements. Costs reflected represent only the City's portion of the anticipated cost of the projects. The current cost share agreement with the County for capital improvements at Ivy Creek is 50% / 50%. 5) Washington Park Basketball Court Renovations Proposed F.Y. 19 – $150,000 This project will renovate all three basketball courts (two lower, one upper) in Washington Park. Current courts are in need of repairs and resurfacing, backboard and rim replacement. Current standards and backboards are at the end of their service life. 6 1/2/2018 Non-bondable Projects Total expenditures for the F.Y. 2019 Non-Bondable projects, $8,075,228, are broken down as follows: Education 1) Schools Small Capital Improvements Proposed F.Y. 19 – $300,000 This sum is to cover the some of the small capital improvement projects within the various City Schools. This expenditure item is offset by a corresponding dedicated revenue from the Schools. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $415,964. Economic Development 1) Economic Development Strategic Initiatives Proposed F.Y. 19 – $150,000 The City has a history of funding a strategic investments fund so that a ready source of funds is available when unique opportunities arise. The strategic initiative funds are critical to the economic development efforts of the City. These efforts include marketing, business retention, small business support, incubator support, sponsorship of job fairs and workforce development. These funds are also used to assist in the long term strategic improvements, to grow and expand the tax base, as well as allowing the City to respond quickly to take advantage of a variety of strategic opportunities. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $1,756,465. Transportation and Access 1) Sidewalk Repair and Improvements Proposed F.Y. 19 – $424,360 This project funds the repair of the City’s existing sidewalks. Sidewalk repairs are necessary to keep existing infrastructure safe and hazard free and are necessary for completion of the pedestrian network which in turn, is needed to balance sound transportation alternatives. When the tripping hazards, gaps, and broken sidewalks are repaired it helps to minimize the liability of the City. As part of the F.Y. 15-19 C.I.P. this project received an increase of approximately $200,000 per year to provide for the repair, upgrade, and/or replacement of existing A.D.A. ramps, primarily those ramps on streets scheduled for paving as required by ADA law. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $880,512. 2) State Bridge Inspections Proposed F.Y. 19 – $121,137 This project is the continuation of the required State inspections of the various bridges throughout the City. V.D.O.T. requires bridge inspection reports on numerous structures be submitted annually. The current inspection schedule includes 22 bridges, box culverts, and overhead signs. Prior to F.Y. 14 this project was combined with the Minor Bridge Repair project under the title State Bridge and Highway Priorities. The projects were separated to show the true cost of doing inspections and the cost of bridge maintenance. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $419,855. 7 1/2/2018 3) Minor Bridge Repairs Proposed F.Y. 19 – $212,180 This project is the continuation of the required maintenance of the various bridges throughout the City. This request is for lump sum C.I.P. project money to rehab/maintain citywide bridge projects. Work may include repairs to substructure (generally includes parts underneath and out of sight) and superstructure (generally includes the deck, railings, and 'visible to motorists' parts) elements. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $1,545,603. 4) City Match Requirement for C.A.T. Transit Proposed F.Y. 19 – $4,600 Bus and Bus Related Purchases The matching funds are to leverage Federal and State capital grant funding for bus purchases. In F.Y. 2019, C.A.T. Bus & Bus-Related Purchases will include: One replacement 26-foot BOC bus. For cost projections it is assumed that the federal share is 80 percent, the state share is 16 percent, and the City share is 4 percent. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $1,034,260. 5) Intelligent Transportation System Proposed F.Y. 19 – $97,850 The Intelligent Transportation System (I.T.S.) is comprised of traffic signal related hardware and software that communicates and coordinates with traffic signals citywide from the Traffic Operations Command Center. The system is also comprised of three weather stations related to street surface conditions during weather emergencies, and four (4) variable message boards located on major city entrances. Coordinated signal corridors controlled from the Control Center include Emmet Street, Main Street, Avon Street, Preston Avenue, and Ridge/5th. The project funds maintenance and upgrades of the system, including field and command center hardware and software, as well as on- going costs for utilities such as phone lines. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $254,742. 6) City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements Proposed F.Y. 19 – $150,000 The request is for lump sum CIP project money to address various traffic engineering issues as they arise. Projects would include traffic control enhancements, reconfiguring intersections, retiming and coordinating traffic signals, addressing parking concerns, mitigating traffic safety problems, and other creative retrofitting to existing traffic operations in lieu of building new roads. Potential projects are coordinated with other state and federal agencies as well as other city departments. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $222,387. 7) Neighborhood Transportation Improvements Proposed F.Y. 19 – $50,000 The proposed Neighborhood Transportation Improvements CIP budget request seeks to implement larger neighborhood improvements that would consume 50% or more of the annual Traffic Engineer's Traffic Improvements fund. Neighborhood Associations advocate for neighbors' requests to address certain corridors or intersections that impact a significant portion of their community. They generally address connectivity and safety issues within the transportation network. Neighborhood transportation improvements for 8 1/2/2018 JPA Pedestrian Improvements and Forest Hills have been submitted in previous years and we anticipate adding others, such as Locust Ave, pending results of the pilot project The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $50,000. 8) Citywide A.D.A. Improvements - Proposed F.Y. 19 – $150,000 Sidewalks and Curbs This project would provide handicapped accessibility at various locations throughout the City allowing the City to meet federally required guidelines for handicapped access. Upgrades include but are not limited to curb cuts and A.D.A. ramps, crosswalks, bulbouts, enhanced pedestrian signal equipment for signalized intersections, sidewalk obstruction removal, etc. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $121,233. 9) Bicycle Infrastructure Proposed F.Y. 19 – $200,000 This project implements the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which addresses various bicycle access and safety issues on City streets, as well as other related bicycle infrastructure issues. Potential projects will be vetted through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee as well as at Traffic Meetings to include N.D.S., police, fire, parks/trails planner, and public works. Projects would include re-striping pavements, reconfiguring intersections, additional bicycle. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/transportation/bicycle-and-pedestrian/bicycle-pedestrian-master- plan The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $486,916. 10) NDS Permit Tracking Software Replacement Proposed F.Y. 19 – $250,000 This project implements the replacement for the City's current permit tracking system utilized by the Department of Neighborhood Development Services. The current software tracks all building permit applications as well as site plans, subdivisions, special use permits, rezonings, and design control review district applications. The current program lengthened the intake time of applications dramatically, and many users relied instead on legacy tracking systems instead of adopting the current program because of the counter- intuitive user interface. A new program from a vendor with multiple local government clients is projected to save a tremendous amount of staff time, track all NDS applications, allow applicants much greater access and ease in reviewing these records, enable the use of performance measures in evaluating departmental performance, and increase the transparency of development activities and applications. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $250,000 11) Right of Way Appurtenance Proposed F.Y. 19 – $150,000 Request is to establish a flexible lump sum account to address unfunded needs for the repair and replacement of ROW appurtenances, such as guardrail, handrails, and other safety and security features. 9 1/2/2018 Parks and Recreation 1) Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account Proposed F.Y. 19 – $200,000 The Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account were created to provide Parks and Recreation with the flexibility to prioritize those smaller projects to accomplish the most pressing needs. For F.Y. 18 projects are proposed to include, but not limited to: RecTrac server replacement, CCTV installation, upgrades and enhancements at recreational and maintenance facilities; park restroom renovations at Belmont, Greenleaf and Pen Parks; Washington Park bog garden; Crow center restroom and shower renovations and ventilation work; new spray ground features for Forest Hills and Greenleaf Parks; replace diving Board at Onesty Family Aquatic Center with faux climbing wall; new lane lines for Smith AFC; replacement of Cardiovascular and weight training equipment at Smith AFC; window blind system for Key Recreation Center gymnasium; Maplewood Cemetery wall repairs; Forest Hills spray ground surface replacement The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $286,410. 2) Parks and Schools Playground Renovations Proposed F.Y. 19 – $109,073 The Parks and Recreation Department maintains twenty-nine (29) playgrounds across the City. This project includes the replacement of the City Parks playground equipment and of playground equipment at Charlottesville City School Parks, to ensure user safety and comply with current codes. This project will provide improved safety for the residents who use playgrounds daily. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $368,002. 3) Trails and Greenway Development Proposed F.Y. 19 – $100,000 This project is the result of reallocated capital funds at the direction of City Council in February 2006. Parks and Recreation is currently managing this program and has moved forward on a number of fronts, new construction through Safe Routes to School funds around Buford Middle School and at Venable School, in Mcintire Park along the 250 bypass for a commuter trail, at Azalea Park, and the improvement of connections to existing trails through the site plan review process. Trails were the # 1 priority as defined by the citizens in a citizen survey conducted as part of the Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment in 2005. The unallocated balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $77,882. 4) Urban Tree Planting Proposed F.Y. 19 – $50,000 The protection of the Urban Tree Canopy has a direct affect upon air quality, stormwater management and quality of life for City residents and is a highly held value among residents of the City. These funds are used for preventive work and the preservation of the tree canopy, leveraging the completed tree inventory in the city, assess problem trees and further define action strategies toward the protection of the tree canopy. These funds will also be used for the procurement of replacement trees and the planting of new trees in areas of where invasive species are prevalent and along riparian buffers to enhance water quality and stormwater management strategies. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $0. 10 1/2/2018 5) Downtown Mall Tree Preservation Planning Proposed F.Y. 19 – $100,000 This funds the planning, design and precise implementation strategies for each grove of trees on the Downtown Mall and each tree within those groves. This study funding will provide more information regarding preservation, removal, replacement, species selection, pruning strategies and soil management. This one-time investment will provide the community with the necessary guidance and decisions to ensure the preservation of this significant community asset. 6) Parkland Acquisition Proposed F.Y. 19 – $95,000 These funds will be used to pursue land acquisition opportunities to preserve open space, protect natural resources and improve riparian buffers and provide future trail connections. Green infrastructure and open space conservation are often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air and achieve other environmental goals. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $169,965. 7) Refurbish Parks Restrooms Proposed F.Y. 19 – $50,000 This funding will assist in addressing renovation issues of outdoor facility restrooms which are presently outdated and tired and provide users with a negative impression of our parks system in high traffic park areas. Specific components include: materials and finishes, ventilation, lighting and fixture updates. Restrooms in need of renovation include: Pen Park, Belmont Park, Greenleaf Park, Washington Park and McIntire Park. Restrooms will be effectively gutted and totally renovated with additional upgrades such as constant ventilation being installed where not present. Stormwater Initiatives 1) Neighborhood Drainage Projects Proposed F.Y. 19 – $125,000 These funds are used to partner with City property owner funding to solve neighborhood drainage and flooding issues on residential properties that have never been budgeted on their own merit before. Cost participation by City residents makes the City funds go further. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $460,815. Technology Infrastructure 1) Communications Technology Account/ Proposed F.Y. 19 – $47,500 Public Access Television This funding will allow the City to continue upgrading and improving its cable network services and programming to the citizens by providing technology equipment and maintenance of that equipment to the Public Access Offices at C.A.T.E.C.; providing technology and equipment to Channel 10 located in City Hall. This funding is tied to the P.E.G. Fee Revenue. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $176,349. 11 1/2/2018 2) City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure Proposed F.Y. 19 – $250,000 Information Technology systems and software needs have grown from sporadic workgroup and departmental specific functions to integrated organization-wide technology platforms for analysis and decision-making. These important technology investments need to be reviewed outside of department specific needs, in a holistic and comprehensive manner, that takes into account the strategic direction and overall business needs of the City as whole. This project would establish a separate funding stream for City wide strategic technology needs. The projects funded by the Citywide IT Strategic Infrastructure account would support enhancement needs, such as the expansion of resources and emerging technologies, and projects/systems that would improve efficiency and effectiveness of our services and employees. Other Governmental Commitments 1) Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund Proposed F.Y. 19 – $3,399,204 The primary focus of CAHF is to accomplish the goal adopted by Council in February 2010 (as contained in the 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing report) to grow the supported affordable housing stock to 15% of overall housing stock by 2025. CAHF funds are specifically targeted toward assisting with creation of new supported affordable housing opportunities for persons/households of low to moderate-income levels or preserving existing supported affordable units. Based upon these goals $3.39 million of F.Y. 2019 CIP funding is earmarked for the Charlottesville Housing Fund. For more information on this project please visit the following website: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood- development-services/housing-grants/charlottesville-affordable-housing-fund The unallocated balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $81,325. 2) Public Housing Redevelopment Proposed F.Y. 19 – $250,000 This project would be to begin to set aside funding for the future redevelopment of the City’s public housing sites. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $250,000. 3) Home Energy Conservation Grant Program Proposed F.Y. 19 – $125,000 The Home Energy Conservation Grant Program is a grant/loan program for residential owner-occupied housing that would fund energy conservation measures for the recipients by either providing a grant to low-income families, or a low interest loan to non low- income families, as incentive for energy conservation. The intent of the program is to provide savings on utilities; to facilitate low-income families to be able to afford energy saving measures; and to reduce the usage of nonrenewable energy. Participants first receive a home energy audit to identify the biggest culprits of energy waste and to determine an appropriate scope of work. Any homeowner in the City of Charlottesville whose income is less than 80% A.M.I. is eligible to participate in the program. The City of Charlottesville has partnered with the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) to carry out the Home Energy Conservation Grant program. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $125,000. 12 1/2/2018 4) P.V.C.C. Advanced Technology Center Proposed F.Y. 19 – $63,324 This request is for funds to construct a 45,000 square foot advanced technology center which will house credit and non-credit programs in advanced manufacturing (engineering technology and mechatronics), information systems technology (cyber security, networking and programming) and viticulture and enology. Graduates of these programs will earn degrees, certificates and industry certifications that will prepare them for high- tech and high-demand jobs that will meet the needs of regional employers. Locality funding request is for the site work: Locality share of $1,000,000 total site work estimate. The contribution is requested proportionately (by enrollment) between seven localities in PVCC’s service region. Based on this plan, the City’s contribution (19.3% of enrollment) is estimated to be $192,972. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2017 is $48,243. 5) Senior Center at Belvedere Proposed F.Y. 19 – $600,000 This funding represents the City’s contribution to the construction of a new Senior Center facility to be located in the Belvedere neighborhood. The facility will be more than 50,000 sq. feet of space designed for healthy aging activities and consistent with healthy aging best practices. This is year one of a two year commitment, for a total contribution of $1.2M. For more information on this project please visit the following website: https://seniorcenterinc.org/the-center-at-belvedere 13 1/2/2018 Attachment III F.Y. 2019 – 2023 Unfunded C.I.P. Projects List FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Notes/Comments FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY22 FY23 5 Year Total West Main Street Improvements (2,000,000) 2,250,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 12,250,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Funding in proposed CIP fully funds Phase I. Central Library Renovation - 761,248 11,367,634 - - 12,128,882 Since this is a joint City/County project, this should be reflected in both jurisdictions CIP plans. Currently, this project is not in the Albemarle County proposed capital budget either. Ridge Street Fire Station - Redevelopment 785,000 10,100,000 - 10,885,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. School HVAC Critical Backlog 1,700,000 2,000,000 2,400,000 - - 6,100,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Friendship Court Infrastructure 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 6,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Due to the size of the request from an outside agency, this project needs to be fully vetted by City Council prior to inclusion in the proposed CIP. Washington Park Rec Center Expansion 500,000 4,750,000 150,000 - - 5,400,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Dairy Road Bridge Replacement 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. McIntire Park Master Plan Implementation 2,500,000 2,500,000 - - - 5,000,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. SIA Infill Sidewalk Construction 1,700,000 - 3,200,000 - - 4,900,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. CCS Priority Improvement Projects 500,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 900,000 500,000 4,400,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Traffic Signal Infrastructure Replacement 500,000 510,000 520,200 530,604 541,216 2,602,020 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation (750,000) 3,000,000 - - - 2,250,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Street Reconstruction (Milling and Paving) 422,162 434,827 447,872 461,308 475,148 2,241,317 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. 1 1/2/2018 FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Notes/Comments FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY22 FY23 5 Year Total Undergrounding Utilities - 1,670,000 400,000 - - 2,070,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. SIA Property Acquisition 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Valley Trail Railroad Tunnel 50,000 - 1,000,000 - - 1,050,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. CATEC Roof Replacement - - 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 The City's portion of this project ($500,000) is recommended to be funded through the Facilities Lump Sum as opposed to a stand alone line item project. The requested amount of $1M represents the full cost of the project - the County contributes 50% of the funding for CATEC related projects. Parks and Recreation Lump Sum 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Parkland Acquisition 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 775,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. GIS - Centric Enterprise System 225,000 275,000 175,000 75,000 - 750,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Is projected that these needs could be handled through the Citywide IT Strategic Infrastructure project. Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks and Curbs 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Police Department Entry /Canopy and Lobby - - 475,000 - - 475,000 Funding in the FY19-23 CIP represents Renovations design funds for the project. This amount represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Traffic Sign Retro-Reflective Compliance 130,000 200,000 200,000 - - 530,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. 2 1/2/2018 FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Notes/Comments FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY22 FY23 5 Year Total Downtown Mall Tree Active Lifecycle Management 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Funding is included in the Proposed CIP for the Downtown Mall Tree Preservation Planning project and the lifecycle management funding needs to be reevaluated once the planning is completed. Trails and Greenway Development 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. NDS Fee Schedule Updates 500,000 - - - - 500,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Yorktown Drive Sidewalk 96,800 96,800 96,800 96,800 96,800 484,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Wayfinding 100,000 50,000 100,000 50,000 100,000 400,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Parks Lighting Replacement 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Tree Maintenance and Management (Non-Mall) 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. This project is seen as operational in nature and is recommended to be considered for funding in the Parks and Recreation operating budget. Green Infrastructure Opportunities 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 375,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Onesty Family Aquatic Center Play Structure - 350,000 - - - 350,000 Given other funding needs and projected Replacement revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Crowe Pool ADA Renovation 30,000 300,000 - - - 330,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. City Building HVAC Replacement 50,000 57,500 65,225 73,182 81,378 327,285 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Public Works Salt Storage Facility Replacement 300,000 - - - - 300,000 Funding for this project was approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. 3 1/2/2018 FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Notes/Comments FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY22 FY23 5 Year Total Carver Recreation Center Office Expansion/Renovation - - 300,000 - - 300,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Traffic Engineering Improvements 53,054 56,145 59,330 62,610 65,514 296,653 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in FY19-23 CIP. Forest Hills Spray Pad Shade Structure - 250,000 - - - 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Key Rec Center Restroom/Locker Room Upgrades - - 250,000 - - 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course - Cart Trail Repaving 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course - Irrigation System 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected Renovations revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Blight and Code Enforcement Fund 150,000 50,000 - 50,000 - 250,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course - Bunker Renovations 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. 3-D Modeling for Proposed Zoning and Redevelopment 200,000 - - - - 200,000 Funding for this project was approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. Police Fleet Cameras 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Funding for this project was approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. Historic Preservation Program - Historic Surveys 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 150,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Crowe Rec Center ADA Renovations 150,000 - - - - 150,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Washington Park Pool Shade Structure Replacement 100,000 - - - - 100,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Parks Master Planning - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course - Tee Box Leveling 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Meadowcreek Golf Course - Exterior Lighting 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Given other funding needs and projected Installation revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. 4 1/2/2018 FY 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested Notes/Comments FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY22 FY23 5 Year Total Police Protective Equipment 70,700 - - - - 70,700 Funding for this project was approved as part of the FY 2017 Year End Appropriation. Police Investigation Interview Room Video System 37,000 - - - - 37,000 Given other funding needs and projected revenues available, this is not recommended for funding. Total for all Requests 13,544,716 23,016,520 30,497,061 19,604,504 11,115,056 97,777,857 5 1/2/2018 Attachment IV School Facilities and City Facilities Detail Capital Projects Updated: October 3, 2017 Facilities Development Government - Lump Sum Projects P-00922 P-00948 Approved Approved Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Project Title FY 17 FY 18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 CATEC - chiller replacement 180,000 - - - - - - CATEC - heating & ventilation unit replacements (5) in shop areas - - - - - 125,000 - CATEC - electrical: replace 23 original circuit breaker panels - - - - 180,000 - - CATEC - interior painting - 42,000 - - - - - CATEC - asphalt parking lot milling & paving - 150,000 - - - - CATEC - roof replacement - - - 500,000 - - - CATEC - building automation system (BAS) - controls replacement - - - 150,000 - - - Central Library - interior finishes - - - 350,000 - - - Central Library - restroom renovations & ADA upgrades - Phase II - - 275,000 - - - - City Hall - second floor conference room 65,000 - - - - - - City Hall Complex (CH, Michie & PD) - building envelope - - - - - 470,000 80,000 City Hall Annex - elevator replacement - - - - 225,000 - - City Hall Annex - IT renovation - 80,000 - - - - - Fire: 250 Bypass Station - interior renovation 500,000 - - - - - - Fire: Ridge Street Station - kitchen & dormitory renovations 325,000 - - - - - - Gordon Avenue Library - children's section & main level restroom renovations - 375,000 - - - - - Gordon Avenue Library - parking lot improvements 16,461 - - - - - - Health Department - parking lot improvements - 180,000 - - - - - Jessup House - building envelope restoration, window replacements & chimney repairs - - - - 50,000 - - Market Street Parking Garage - structural rehabilitation - - - - 75,000 450,000 - McGuffey Art Center - building envelope and window restoration 700,000 - - - - - - McIntire Building (aka Historical Center) - roof replacement - 93,000 - - - - - PD Interior Renovations (basement & 3rd floor) 45,000 475,000 Preston-Morris Building - window & exterior door replacements - - 40,000 - - - - Preston-Morris Building - lower level upfit - 75,000 - - - - - Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase II - 150,000 - - - - - Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase III - - - - 350,000 - - Approved FY Approved Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed 17 FY 18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 Project Totals: 1,786,461 1,040,000 940,000 1,000,000 880,000 1,045,000 80,000 Lump Sum Funding: 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,491 Transfers / Roll Forwards: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer FY13 balance to FY17: 560,505 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer FY15 balance to FY17: 214,791 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer FY15 balance to FY17: 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfer CATEC "land take account" balance to FY17: 144,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 Albemarle County reimbursement: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CATEC IT Networking Academy reimbursement: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Annual Fund Balance: $179,052 $5,491 $105,491 $45,491 $165,491 $491 $965,491 On Hold / Unfunded Projects CATEC: Fire Protection - installation of fire suppression system 310,000 Central Library - installation of 2nd elevator 150,000 - JMRL to include in proposed major renovation Central Library - fire sprinkler system (pre-action) 325,000 - JMRL to include in proposed major renovation City Hall - interior door replacements TBD City Hall - Council Chambers - renovation (scope TBD) TBD City Hall Annex - carpet replacement (floors 2-4) 200,000 Fire: Ridge Street - replace ACT floor tile (2nd floor) 100,000 Fire: Ridge Street - select milling, paving & storm water improvements 125,000 Fire: Ridge Street - building envelope restoration TBD - Develop cost estimate Fire: Ridge Street - fire sprinkler & fire alarm TBD - Develop cost estimate Key Rec Center - entry canopy replacement 50,000 Levy Opera House - elevator overhaul 73,000 - On Hold Levy Opera House - replace standing seam metal roof 225,000 - On Hold Levy Opera House – HVAC component replacement 425,000 - On Hold McGuffey Art Center - facility a/c and ventilation 1,300,000 Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase IV 250,000 Public Works Admin Building - interior finishes - Phase V 350,000 PW's Fleet Garage & Warehouse - fire suppression system & fire alarm system 320,000 Schools 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Report Date: November 21, 2017 Approved Approved Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 7/1/15 - 6/30/16 7/1/16 - 6/30/17 7/1/17 - 6/30/18 7/1/18 - 6/30/19 7/1/19 - 6/30/20 7/1/20 - 6/30/21 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 7/1/21 - 6/30/22 Funding/Revenue: City CIP Appropriation -- includes partial funding for Small Cap Program: $1,045,491 $1,045,491 $1,076,856 $1,109,162 $1,142,437 $1,176,710 $1,212,011 $1,248,371 City Line Item CIP FY 2017 & 2018 - CHS Track $100,000 $1,666,200 City Line Item CIP FY 2017 - CHS Field House (design) $100,000 City Line Item CIP FY 2018 - CCS Improvement Projects $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 CCS Gainshare contribution - Nov 2015 $100,000 CCS Gainshare contribution - Oct 2016 $100,000 Small Cap transfer - CHS Black Box (Oct 2016) $50,000 Year-End Carry Forward: $64,813 $45,162 $234,356 $24,628 $183,790 $56,227 $462,937 $229,948 Total Available Funds: $1,260,304 $1,390,653 $3,977,412 $2,133,790 $2,326,227 $2,232,937 $2,674,948 $2,478,319 Large Cap Projects FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Auditorium Improvements (seating & finishes) - Burnley Moran and Johnson $325,000 Buford Auditorium - seating & finishes $125,000 Buford Building Envelope Restoration $450,000 Buford Electrical (11 panel replacements) $75,000 CCS Capacity Study $59,560 CCS Improvement Projects $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 CCS Traffic Safety & Circulation Improvements (Johnson, J/V & Buford) $102,304 CHS / MLK-PAC Electrical (70 panel & 3 switchboard replacements) $490,000 CHS Black Box - catwalk safety improvements $260,619 CHS Scene Shop & Storage - safety improvements $94,346 CHS Building Envelope Restoration $483,996 CHS Roof Replacement (FY22-design & FY23-construction) $120,000 $1,200,000 CHS Stadium Master Plan $1,185 CHS Track (FY17-design & FY18-construction) $100,000 $1,666,200 CHS Field House (FY17-design & FY18-construction) $100,000 $775,000 Central Office (Dairy Road) ADA Improvements $175,000 Clark Building Envelope Restoration $350,000 Clark Restroom Renovations & Interior Improvements (flooring, casework, etc.) $65,000 $435,000 Facility Condition / Limited ADA Assessments $59,980 Interior Painting -- Systemwide Fac Maintenance $76,937 $76,584 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 J/V Fire Protection - fire sprinkler system $539,012 MLK-PAC Fire Curtain (power hoist re-set) $116,000 Venable Building Envelope Restoration & site drainage improvements (includes Annex) $35,000 $500,000 Venable Elevator Replacement $200,000 Walker Auditorium - seating & finishes $125,000 Walker Courtyard Improvements Master Plan $7,500 Walker Building Envelope Restoration (includes CO1) $475,000 Walker Electrical (11 panel replacements) $75,000 Walker North Atrium Enclosure $150,000 Small Cap Program Funding Allocation $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Actual/Estimated Large Cap Expenditures $1,215,142 $1,156,297 $3,952,784 $1,950,000 $2,270,000 $1,770,000 $2,445,000 $2,385,000 Year-End Balance $45,162 $234,356 $24,628 $183,790 $56,227 $462,937 $229,948 $93,319 -- line item funding Charlottesville City Schools In Design/Bid SC-003 (426) School Small Capital Project Plan In Construction Report Date: 10/09/2017 Complete On Hold FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Unfunded Funding: City Contribution via Large Cap $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $0.00 CCS Contribution $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 Small Cap Caryover From Prior FY $415,799.80 $64,239.45 $42,191.17 $70,141.17 $61,541.17 $0.00 Budget Change: School Security Grant Reimbursement (Pending) $7,582.49 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Budget Change: $50k to LC (Blk Box Perfance Lighting) -$50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Available Funds: $683,382.29 $374,239.45 $352,191.17 $380,141.17 $371,541.17 $0.00 Small Cap Projects Ranking PM P-00914-02 All 1 CCS Enhanced Security $0.00 P-00914-02-01 O 1 FM Elem. Security Enhancements; see $7,582 credit above $38,213.00 $0.00 P-00914-02-02 C 1 FM Clark CCTV (labor only) $26,287.00 $0.00 All 2 Misc. Cafeteria Equip Replacement Allowance $0.00 $7,072.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 B-Moran Stage - Minor Refinish $0.00 $3,000.00 B-Moran Gym - Major Refinish $6,550.00 Buford Gym- Minor $2,055.00 Buford Stage- Minor $0.00 $4,000.00 CHS Black Box - Minor Refinish $3,800.00 CHS Small Gym - Minor Refinish $0.00 $5,300.00 P-00914-18-04 C FM CHS Large Gym - Minor Refinish $5,600.00 CHS Large Gym - Major Refinish $36,000.00 P-00914-18-05 D FM Clark Gym - Minor Refinish $0.00 CHS MLK-PAC Stage - Minor Refinish $0.00 $3,500.00 P-00914-18-01 C FM Clark C-room Floors (11) $12,382.40 Greenbrier Gym- Major $7,800.00 Greenbrier Stage - Major Refinish $3,500.00 Jackson-Via Stage- Major $3,000.00 $0.00 P-00914-18-02 C FM Johnson Stage - Minor Refinish $2,000.00 P-00914-18-03 C FM Venable Stage - Minor Refinish $2,150.00 Venable Gym - Major Refinish $2,800.00 Walker Stage - Minor Refinish $2,150.00 Walker Gym- Minor $5,200.00 P-00907 C All 3 TB Traffic Movement Study $8,015.17 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All 3 Hard Surface Maintenance & Traffic Mods 2 B-Moran: Install Speed Hump & Signage off Mowbray $3,000.00 3 B-Moran: Re-seal and crack-fill asphalt trails $10,000.00 3 B-Moran: Basic asphalt maint. $4,000.00 not likely required by 2020 3 Buford: Crack Fill, Seal and Stripe Track $15,000.00 3 Buford: Back road (and road to track) mill and pave $20,000.00 partial existing project; partial new from FCA 3 Buford: Crack Fill, Seal, Re-stripe Parking Lots, Roads, Paths $15,000.00 P-00914-07-12 C 3 SH CHS: Final Paving Phase $64,644.93 3 CHS: Pavement Maint. $10,000.00 FCA 2017 3 Clark: Re-seal and stripe Parking Lot $10,000.00 P-00914-07-02 C 3 TB Greenbrier: Parking Lot Seal and Stripe $6,420.00 3 Johhnson: Crackfills/seal west hard-surf p-ground & trails $10,000.00 P-00914-07-01 C 3 TB Johnson: Crackfill, seal, and stripe parking and roads $9,680.00 3 Venable: Re-seal and stripe parking; front & back $12,000.00 3 Venable: Crackfill & seal SE hard-surface playground $10,000.00 P-00914-07-04 C 2 TB Walker: Pot Hole Repair $442.00 Walker 3 Walker: Mill, re-pave, re-stripe all parking areas (incl. CO-1) $45,000.00 FCA calls for 2017 3 Walker: Crack-fill & seal asphalt play pad in quad $7,500.00 partial new from Princ Mtg; partial new from FCA All System-Wide Drainage Improvements See Dan Sweet prior to any drainage projects P-00913 O B-Moran 1 RJ Fire rated dr at b-ment & 1st flr stair #2 $27,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 B-Moran 3 Media Center, Replace Carpet & update Circ Desk $0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pushed out 2 yr from 2017 P-00914-10 C B-Moran 3 MG Restore Flag Pole Assembly & Base $3,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 B-Moran 3 Misc. Concrete Repairs $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Partial existing; partial new B-Moran 4 Southwest playground site and equipment issues $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 Recent work by FM…wait and see B-Moran 3 Shingle Roof Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 FCA calls for 2021 B-Moran 2 Replace spandrel windows with clear glass $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 P-00914-25 O B-Moran FM Classroom Flooring $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 4 Classroom Lighting (Add'l control/switching) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 P-00902 C Buford 2 FM Select Classroom Carpet Removal $7,209.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 3 C-room window treatments for day-light control $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 Buford 2 Exterior Stairs Reconstruction (2 locations) $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-06 C Buford 3 TB Football Goal Posts $3,140.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 4 Band Room Floor Mods & Re-carpeting $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 3 Drainage Corrections in Front of Bldg C $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 3 Install Concrete Walkway @ Bldg C to Track (+ misc. repairs) $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 partial new from Princ Mtg; partial new from FCA P-00914-23 O Buford 4 RJ Install/Replace Water Fountains in C Building $2,130.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pending TB investigation Buford 2 FM Add additional Under-Canopy lights @ B-C Connection $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford 2 Sound control in cafeteria $0.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 School Small Cap Plan 11-14-17.xlsx Page 1 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Unfunded P-00914-26 O Buford Exhaust Fan Electrical $4,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford Mansard Roof Paint $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Buford Science Classroom Casework Removal $20,000.00 Buford 4 Office / Recepion reconfiguration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 CHS 4 Replace Corridor Ceilings & Bulkheads $0.00 $0.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00893 C CHS 3 FM Replace Gym Doors @ 1982 Addition Corridor $25,898.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-15 C CHS 4 MG Glass Block Wall Removal $11,380.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-12 C CHS 2 SH Softball Dugouts $24,871.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CHS 3 Repair Misc. Ext concrete $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 FCA calls for 2017 P-00914-20 C CHS 3 RJ Replace O-head door @ south loading dock $3,981.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CHS 3 Black Box Theater Performance Lighting $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 P-00747 ? CHS 2 Interior CMU re-pointing and re-finishing (incl. PAC loft) $0.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Partial existing; partial new CHS Band Room Floor Mods & Re-carpeting $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-19 C CHS 2 RJ Roof Repairs $26,811.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CHS Signage Upgrades (Parking lot) $20,000.00 CHS/ CO2 Hall carpet $0.00 $5,000.00 Clark 3 Misc. concrete flatwork replacement $0.00 $8,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Partial existing; partial new P-00894 C Clark 2 MG Playground @ Old Circular Amphitheater $70,727.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Clark 3 Replace fencing at P-lot along Monticello Ave. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 2/9/17: Pushed out to 2020 Clark 3 Replace Cafeteria Flooring $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Clark 3 Gym/Aud. Stage Clg - Replace clg/add folding partition $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 P-00887 C Clark 2 FM Monument Stair Repairs $17,240.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00950-03 C Clark Elevator Eval. $0.00 $165.00 Clark 2 Repair/replace fencing at South and East Yard Borders $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 2/9/17: Pushed out to 2020 Greenbrier 3 Media Center Carpet $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Greenbrier 3 Replace Hallway light fixtures $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Greenbrier 4 Classroom Improvements (storage, dividers, etc.) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $45,000.00 Partial existing; partial from Princ Mtg P-00914-01 C Greenbrier 1 MG Roof Security $17,044.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Greenbrier 4 Design of Hallway Theme Graphics (K-5 prototype) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TBD Greenbrier 3 Misc. conc. Flatwork repairs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 FCA calls for 2017 Greenbrier 4 Cracked Terrazzo repairs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 FCA calls for 2017 Greenbrier 3 Replace cracked tiles in restrooms $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 P- 950-01 Greenbrier Modular Classroom Elect. / Plumbing $0.00 $6,306.28 P-00914-08 C Johnson 2 FM Windows-Replace select failed units $5,394.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Johnson 3 Interior Modifications, Phase II (Library) $0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pushed out 1 yr from 2017 P-00914-09 C Johnson 3 MG Restore Flag Pole Assembly & Base $2,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-16 C Johnson 2 CJ Serving Line $20,944.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Johnson Shingle Roof Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 FCA calls for 2021 Johnson 3 Cooling Tower Screen $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 Johnson 2 Replace spandrel windows with clear glass $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 P-00896 C J-Via 2 TM Select Plate Glass Replacement $6,252.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 J-Via 4 Recessed Corridor Work-station Re-work $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 Pushed out 2 yr from 2018 ? J-Via 3 RJ Replace Misc. failed R-room vanity tops $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-914-24 O J-Via 2 RJ Front Entrance Modification (security) $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 J-Via 3 Replace Media Center Carpet $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 J-Via 3 Misc. conc. Flatwork repairs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 FCA calls for 2017 P-00914-13 C L-M 2 FM Lugo-McGinness: Alarm and Intercom $16,520.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00890 C MLK-PAC 2 SH Fire Curtain Auto Release (design + const in 2018) $15,764.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-14 C MLK-PAC 1 MG Stage Rigging Phs II $7,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MLK-PAC 2 House Light Replacement Fixtures $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 Perhaps can be part of future nrg perf contract Venable 3 Classroom Flooring (old part of building), Phs II $0.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 3 Classroom Flooring Primary Wing $0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 3 Library, replace carpeting $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 3 Replace select hall ceiling tiles $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 2 Replace interior stair treads & wall base $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-04 C Venable 3 TB Re-paint exterior ADA Railings $750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 4 Renovate/reconfigure Admin Suite $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 P-00914-22 O Venable 3 RJ Admin Office reconfig (minor); security enhancement @ entrance $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Venable 2 Monument Stair Repairs $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pushed out 1 yr from 2017; budget increased Venable 3 Loading Dock Reconfiguration $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 Venable 3 Misc. conc. Flatwork repairs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 FCA calls for 2017 Walker 4 Main Sign $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 Pushed out 1 yr from 2019 Walker 4 Band Room Floor Mods & Re-carpeting $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-21 C Walker 2 New Projection Screen in Auditorium $3,218.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 P-00914-17 C Walker 2 RJ Roof Repair $11,884.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Added at 1/18/17 meeting Walker Bleacher removal and replacement $20,000.00 Walker 3 Repair/replace conc. steps at rear / misc. con. Repair (incl. CO-1) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 FCA calls for 2017 Sub-Total, Projects $613,142.84 $312,048.28 $262,050.00 $298,600.00 $524,000.00 P-00667 - SC-003 Very Small Projects 2016 Cumulative $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Gropen (CHS Sci Lab Panel) $685.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Colonial Webb (Buf Sci Lab Elect Fix) $315.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sub-total, Misc. Very Small Projects $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 School Small Cap Plan 11-14-17.xlsx Page 2 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 Unfunded Total, Projects $614,142.84 $312,048.28 $262,050.00 $298,600.00 $524,000.00 Contingency $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Total Expenses $619,142.84 $332,048.28 $282,050.00 $318,600.00 $524,000.00 Available Balance $64,239.45 $42,191.17 $70,141.17 $61,541.17 -$524,000.00 School Small Cap Plan 11-14-17.xlsx Page 3 Charlottesville City Schools Unfunded Project List November 21, 2017 Project Title Priority 1 CHS Fire Suppression - final phase (Zones 2, 3, 4, & partial 6) 1 $ 1,651,000 Total $ 1,651,000 Project Title Priority 2 Buford: 1-hour fire rated enclosure at each of the four interior stairs of Bldg A 2 $ 100,000 CHS Turf Field Replacement 2 $ 706,000 - target FY 2023 Walker: 1-hour fire rated enclosure at each of the four interior stairs of Bldg A 2 $ 100,000 Total $ 906,000 Project Title Priority 3 Buford Breezeway Enclosure (B Bldg east elevation, connects two modular classrooms) 3 $ 175,000 B-M VCT Replacement (west wing lower & upper halls, and cafeteria) 3 $ 97,000 CHS Centralized Warehouse w/ Loading Dock (div-wide storage/handling facility) - range is $650,000-850,000 3 $ 850,000 Jackson-Via: Commons revovations 3 $ 1,120,000 MLK-PAC performance lighting upgrades 3 $ 75,000 Venable Auditorium - conversion to multi-purpose space 3 $ 825,000 Venable Stormwater 3 $ 200,000 Total $ 3,342,000 Project Title Priority 4 Buford Storefront Replacements - Bldgs A, B & C 4 $ 127,000 Buford Interior Renovations (classroom VCT, restore interior doors, remove bulkheads, etc) 4 $ 176,000 Buford & Walker Covered Walk Repairs 4 $ 100,000 Buford Locker Removal (in corridors) 4 TBD CHS Breezeway Enclosures (3 locations) 4 $ 300,000 CHS Locker Removal (in corridors) & addition of collaboration space 4 TBD CHS Outdoor Learning Lab & Environmental Education Center (Phase I) 4 $ 247,000 Daylighting: -- -- *CHS - Phase II 4 $ 425,000 *Buford 4 $ 413,000 *Walker 4 $ 507,000 *Jackson-Via 4 $ 355,000 *Greenbrier 4 $ 19,000 Greenbrier Interior Renovations 4 $ 225,000 Greenbrier - select window replacements 4 $ 250,000 Jackson-Via - select window replacements 4 $ 100,000 MLK-PAC Seating Refurbishment, Carpeting Replacement & ADA Handrails/Guardrails 4 $ 325,000 Walker Courtyard Improvements 4 TBD Walker Upper Breezeway Enclosure at Elevator 4 $ 200,000 Walker Restroom Renovations 4 $ 250,000 Walker Interior Renovations (classroom & corridor VCT, restore interior doors, remove bulkheads, etc) 4 $ 236,000 Walker Storefront Replacements - Bldgs A, B & C 4 $ 127,000 Total $ 4,382,000 Project Title Priority 5 MLK-PAC Hydraulic Orchestra Pit Floor 5 $ 200,000 MLK-PAC Rigging Modernization - replace counterweight rigging system with motorized hoist 5 $ 170,000 Walker Admin Office Relocation to Main Level 5 $ 200,000 Total $ 570,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 10,851,000 -- Project on HOLD Attachment V Project Request Forms City of Charlottesville FY 2019 - 2023 Capital Improvement Program Preliminary Request Form (1) Project Name (2) Requesting Department (3) Project Funding Requested in Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Requested 5 FY18-22 CIP Process FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 Year Total - (4) FY18-22 Adopted CIP Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Requested 5 Funding FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 Year Total - (5) FY19 - 23 CIP Requested Approved Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Requested 5 Project Funding FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Year Total - - (6) Project Description (7) Alignment with City's Strategic Plan www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan (8) Does this project conform to the Comprehensive Plan? YES or NO www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523 (9) Would approval of this project require changes (increase or decrease) to operational expenditures and/or personnel? YES or NO 12/1/2017 1 City of Charlottesville FY 2019 - 2023 Capital Improvement Program Request Form Instructions Preliminary Request Form The information presented below will help guide you through the completion of the CIP Preliminary Request Form. The Preliminary Request form is a simple one-page form for the initial meeting with the City Manager on August 30th. The City Manager and Budget Office Staff will use this form at the initial CIP meeting in August to help to gather information and ask questions about the projects and may be used to narrow down the overall number of submissions to those projects with a greater likelihood of receiving funding in the final proposed CIP. CIP Project Application Explanation (1) Project Name – For all new projects list the name of the project as you want it to appear in SAP. For existing projects please give the name of the project as it appears in SAP for the current and/or prior fiscal year(s). (2) Requesting Department – List the name of the Department which is responsible for this project. (3) Project Funding Requested during FY18-22 CIP Process – For all projects that were requested as part of the FY 2018 – 2022 CIP process, list the amount that was actually requested during the FY 2018 – 2022 CIP Process, whether it was fully funded or not, for each fiscal year from FY 2018 through FY 2022. The column titled Requested 5 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (4) FY18-22 Adopted CIP Funding – For all projects that were included as part of the FY 2018 – 2022 Adopted CIP, list the amount included in the Adopted CIP for each fiscal year from FY 2018 through FY 2022. The column titled Requested 5 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (5) FY19-23 CIP Requested Project Funding – For all projects list the amount being requested from the City for each fiscal year from FY 2019 through FY 2023. For any projects that were approved in Fiscal Year 2018, please list the amount appropriated in the Adopted CIP for FY 2018. The column titled Requested 5 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (6) Project Description – Provide a brief (1 paragraph max) description of the project. This does not need to be detailed but please include a general description of the project; if the project is required by a legal mandate please indicate that fact; and if the proposed project leverages outside funding in any way please indicate that as well. 1 (7) Alignment with City’s Strategic Plan – Please list the Adopted Strategic Plan Goal(s) with which this project request aligns. Please note that on June 19, 2017, the Charlottesville City Council adopted the updated FY 2018 - 2020 Strategic Plan, so some goals and objectives may be different from previous submissions. More information on the City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan. (8) Comprehensive Plan – In the highlighted space please provide a simple Yes or No answer to the question of whether the project conforms to the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan. More information on the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523. (9) Operational Expenditures – In the highlighted space please provide a simple Yes or No answer to the question of whether the project would require changes, either increases or decreases, to operational expenditures and/or personnel numbers. 2 City of Charlottesville FY 2019 - 2023 Capital Improvement Program Request Form Instructions Final Request Form The information presented below will help guide you through the completion of the CIP Final Request Form. All projects advancing to the second phase of the CIP request process must fill out the Final Request Forms. This form will be used to provide more detailed information on project timing, construction/purchase cost, and operational cost. The Final Request form will be used by the City Manager and the CIP Budget Development Committee to make final CIP inclusion decisions. If you have any questions as to whether you should need to fill out a Final Request form for any of your projects please contact Ryan Davidson (ext.3418 or davidson@charlottesville.org) in the Office of Budget and Performance Management. CIP Project Application Explanation (1) Project Title – For all new projects list the name of the project as you want it to appear in SAP. For existing projects please give the name of the project as it appears in SAP for the current and/or prior fiscal year(s). (2) Estimated Project Start Date – Provide the date on which it is estimated the project will begin incurring expenditures for design, construction, and/or purchase – whichever comes first. (3) Estimated Project Completion Date – Provide the date on which it is estimated that project construction will be completed and no new expenditures incurred. If the project is a recurring yearly project you should list the completion date as “Ongoing”. (3) Project Description – Provide a detailed description of the project that is being requested, including any relevant history or background information on the project. (4) Projected Project Costs – For all projects list the amount requested from the City for each fiscal year from FY 2019 through FY 2028. The column titled 10 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. (5) Funding Source - Record the amounts of funding to be received from each different source (City, State, Federal, Albemarle County, Other) in the appropriate row so that all sources of funding are properly identified. If the project will not receive any outside funding place the entire project amount in the row labeled City. The 10 Year Total for all funding amounts should equal the 10 Year Total for Projected Project Costs. The column titled 10 Year Total will calculate automatically so please do not insert data in this cell. 1 (6) Projected Operational Costs – Please fill out this section thoroughly, if upon completion the project will require ANY increase/decrease in operational costs. If the completed project will require additional facilities maintenance efforts please coordinate with Paul Oberdorfer in the Public Works Department. If the completed project will require additional grounds maintenance efforts, please coordinate with Brian Daly in the Parks and Recreation Department. If the completed project will require additional Street and/or Sidewalk maintenance efforts please coordinate with Steve Mays in the Public Service Division. Personnel  Please list the number of additional FTE’s or additional hours required to staff or maintain this project. Place the increase in the year it would be necessary.  List the estimated salaries for all additional Full-Time personnel under F/T Personnel costs and the estimated salaries of all Temporary/Seasonal personnel under the line titled Temporary Personnel Costs.  The FICA line and Other Benefits Line will calculate automatically once data is entered into the F/T Personnel Cost and Temporary Personnel Cost rows. Operating  If additional operating expenses will be required as a result of this project please list all operating related expenses in this area. Several examples of potential operating expenses have been listed – Utilities, Supplies, Maintenance, Fixed Costs, and Other. Feel free to add new categories if applicable to your project.  Lifecycle Replacement – If the project will result in new/additional infrastructure, facility, or equipment please calculate the lifecycle replacement cost here. The Lifecycle Replacement cost in this instance refers to the estimated cost to upgrade or replace the asset (infrastructure/equipment/facility) spread over the useful life of the facility. For example – if the project will create a facility that needs to be upgraded every 10 years at an estimated upgrade cost of $100,000, then you would list the annual life cycle cost as $10,000 per year ($100,000/10 years = $10,000 per year). Equipment  If additional equipment will be required for operations/maintenance of this project please list those costs under the appropriate line – either Vehicles or Other Operating Equipment. (7) Projected Revenues – Please list all sources of revenue that will result from this project’s completion. Examples would be, but are not limited to, Admission Fees, Annual Passes, Special Event Revenue, etc. If there is revenue in the Other section please specify the type and source of revenue (this could include intergovernmental revenue, increased tax collection, merchandise sales, etc.). (8) Summary – These rows will calculate automatically based upon the information entered in the Projected Project Costs, Funding Source, Projected Operational Cost, and 2 Projected Revenues categories, and will provide a summary of the Total Project Expenses, Total Revenues, and the Net Cost to the City. (9) Alignment with City’s Strategic Plan – Please list and provide a brief explanation as to how the project most directly aligns with an Adopted Strategic Plan Goal and Objective with which this project request most directly aligns at the very least. If the project aligns with a specific Initiative in the Strategic Plan, list and provide an explanation of that that as well. Please note that on June 19, 2017, the Charlottesville City Council adopted the updated FY 2018 - 2020 Strategic Plan, so some goals and objectives may be different from submissions in previous years. More information on the City of Charlottesville Strategic Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan. (10) Alignment with City Comprehensive Plan – In the text box you need to answer the question of whether or not the project conforms to the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan. If yes then you need to identify the specific chapter and goal in the City’s Comprehensive Plan that this project addresses or is related to. Also if the project directly meets one of the identified Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan Priorities (included as attachment) please specify which priority it meets. More information on the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan can be found at the following link: www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523. (11) Other Considerations – In this area highlight any other factors that should be taken into consideration when reviewing this project, such as, but not limited to:  If the project is required by a legal mandate;  If the project will remedy existing safety issues;  If the project ties into another existing City project(s) or if the project will be done in partnership with another non-City organization(s); or,  If there are any restrictions on any grants or donations to be received for the project. (12) Alternative Scope – List any and all alternative methods for completing the project, such as, spreading the project over more than one fiscal year, using different materials, or only completing a portion of the original project request. Also list any effects of completing the project under the alternative methods. (13) Location Map and Other Supporting Documentation – Attach any pictures, maps, plans, or other supporting documentation that would help provide a clearer understanding of the project and may illustrate or better emphasize the need for the project. 3 Capital Improvement Program Final Project Request Form 5- YEAR PROGRAM SPAN: Fiscal Year 19-23 Project Title: Estimated Start Date: Estimated Completion Date: Project Description: PROJECTED PROJECT COSTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL Design - Construction & FFE - Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - FUNDING SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL City - State - Federal - Albemarle County - Other: (Specify)__________ - Total - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECTED OPERATIONAL COSTS Personnel FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL # of Additional FTE - F/T Personnel Costs - Temporary/Seasonal Personnel - Costs FICA (7.65%) - - - - - - - - - - - Benefits (38% of F/T salary) - - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - Operating FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL Utilities - - - - - - - - - - Supplies - - - - - - - - - - Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - Fixed Costs (IT, HVAC, etc.) - - - - - - - - - - Other Operational Expenses - - - - - - - - - - Lifecycle Replacement - - - - - - - - - - Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - Equipment FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL Vehicles - Other Operating Equipment - Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL OPERATING COST - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECTED REVENUES Revenues FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL Admission Fees - Annual Passes - Special Event Revenue - Other (Specify):_________ - Subtotal - - - - - - - - - - - SUMMARY FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 10 YEAR TOTAL Total Expenses - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues - - - - - - - - - - - Net Cost to City - - - - - - - - - - - Operational Cost Recovery #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! Year in which total design and construction costs recovered 1 12/1/2017 Capital Improvement Program Final Project Request Form 5- YEAR PROGRAM SPAN: Fiscal Year 19-23 ALIGNMENT WITH CITY STRATEGIC PLAN www.charlottesville.org/strategicplan ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3523 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ALTERNATIVE SCOPE LOCATION MAP AND OTHER SUPPORTTING DOCUMENTATION 2 12/1/2017 The following are the priorities identified by the Planning Commission for the FY 2019 – 2023 Capital Improvement Program process. Departments submitting CIP requests that they feel meet one of the Planning Commission Priorities should review the below documents and find specific links (page numbers, statements, etc.) to the plans provided, which support the submitted project meeting one of the priorities.  Provide ample robust funding for broader policy implementation including: o Affordable Housing – Fulfillment of the 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing; HAC Recommendations based on RCLCo’s “Comprehensive Housing Analysis and Policy Recommendations” report http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=1369 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=24716 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=37824 http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=37840  Provide ample robust funding for broader planning initiatives currently underway including: o Small Area Plans/Adjacent Area Plans o River Renaissance http://www.tjpdc.org/livablecommunities/Actions%20for%20Com.pdf  Provide ample robust funding to implement place based initiatives including: o SIA http://www.charlottesville.org/index.aspx?page=3409 o West Main Street http://gowestmain.com/ o Belmont Bridge https://sites.google.com/site/belmontbridgereplacement/  Provide ample robust funding to implement broader systemic initiatives including: o Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=1309 o Streets That Work http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=3573 o Green Infrastructure and Environmental programs http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=554 1 Attachment VI Capital Improvement Program Code Requirements Code of Virginia § 15.2-2239. Local planning commissions to prepare and submit annually capital improvement programs to governing body or official charged with preparation of budget A local planning commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall, prepare and revise annually a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the locality for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years. The commission shall submit the program annually to the governing body, or to the chief administrative officer or other official charged with preparation of the budget for the locality, at such time as it or he shall direct. The capital improvement program shall include the commission's recommendations, and estimates of cost of the facilities and life cycle costs, including any road improvement and any transportation improvement the locality chooses to include in its capital improvement plan and as provided for in the comprehensive plan, and the means of financing them, to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year and in a period not to exceed the next four years, as the basis of the capital budget for the locality. In the preparation of its capital budget recommendations, the commission shall consult with the chief administrative officer or other executive head of the government of the locality, the heads of departments and interested citizens and organizations and shall hold such public hearings as it deems necessary. 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2018 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Staff Report: January 2, 2018 Development: 1011 E Jefferson Street (Tax Map 54 Parcel 127) Applicant: David Mitchell, Great Eastern Management Applicant’s Representative(s): Scott Collins, Collins Engineering Current Property Owner: Jefferson Medical Building Limited Partnership Applicable City Code Provisions: 34‐800 – 34‐827 (Site Plans) Zoning District: B‐1 Commercial Reason for Planning Commission Review: Preliminary site plans associated with a property which has a Special Use Permit (SUP) are subject to review by the Planning Commission. Vicinity Map Applicant Property 1 Context Map 1 Context Map 2‐ Zoning Classifications Applicant Property KEY ‐ Yellow: R1‐S, Light Orange: R‐2, Orange: R‐3, Pink: B‐1, Red: B‐2, Purple: DN or HS, Grey: M‐I 2 Standard of Review Approval of a site plan is a ministerial function, as to which the Planning Commission has little or no discretion. When an applicant has submitted a site plan that complies with the requirements of the City’s Site Plan Ordinance, then approval of the plan must be granted. In the event the Planning Commission determines there are grounds upon which to deny approval of a site plan, the motion must clearly identify the deficiencies in the plan, that are the basis for the denial, by reference to specific City Code sections and requirements. Further, upon disapproval of a site plan, the Planning Commission must identify the modifications or corrections that would permit approval of the plan. Summary Scott Collins of Collins Engineering, LLC, acting as agent for Jefferson Medical Building Limited Partnership and Great Eastern Management, is requesting approval of a preliminary site plan to construct a mixed‐use building with up to 127 residential units at 1011 E Jefferson (TMP 54‐ 127). City Council approved a Special Use Permit (SP16‐00001) with conditions for additional residential density on July 5, 2017. The preliminary site plan (Attachment 1) shows a deviation from the building footprint and driveway layout shown in the conceptual plan presented in conjunction with the Special Use Permit (Attachment 4). The preliminary site plan shows an expansion to the rear of the building (on the northern side of the property) for approximately 50% of the rear building façade (150 feet of façade), resulting in an approximately 10% increase in footprint area. The property is a double frontage lot per Section 34‐1122, with a minimum 20 foot setback on 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE. No setback is required for northern side of the subject property (wherein the rear of the building is located), per Section 34‐457(a). The northern building setback shown in the conceptual plan associated with the Special Use Permit shows a varied setback of 25‐55 feet, whereas the preliminary site plan shows a varied setback of 3‐23 feet. The preliminary site plan also proposes a driveway that is set further back from the northern property line than the driveway proposed in the conceptual plan associated with the Special Use Permit. The driveway entrance locations on 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE proposed on the preliminary site plan are in the same location as those proposed on the conceptual plan associated with the Special Use Permit. However, the majority of proposed driveway on the preliminary site plan is located further south (farther from the property line). The portion of the proposed building for which an expansion is shown on the preliminary site plan extends over the proposed driveway. 3 Condition 4 of the Special Use Permit granted by City Council (Attachment 2) states any substantial change of the proposed development regarding the design, height, and other characteristics shall require modification of the Special Use Permit. Condition 4 provides a list of nine (9) specific design aspects that include detailed modified setbacks for 10th Street NE, 11th Street NE, and E Jefferson Street but not the rear of the building (northern side of the property). The driveway location is also not specifically detailed in Condition 4. The building footprint proposed in the preliminary site plan conditions maintain a northern side setback in excess of the side yard setback required in the B‐1 Commercial zone (which requires no setback). The preliminary site plan also proposes evergreen tree buffering along the northern property line in excess of the buffering shown on the conceptual plan associated with the Special Use Permit. Therefore, staff finds that the modification to the building setback on the northern side of the property and the driveway alignment changes are not substantial changes from the conditions of the Special Use Permit granted by City Council. Site Plan Compliance Site plans are reviewed for compliance with City codes and standards. An overview of site plan requirements and the location of those items on the site plan are outlined below. Site Plan Requirements A. Compliance with applicable zoning district regulation B‐1 Commercial District (“B‐1”) (per Sections 34‐440 ‐ 34‐480) The property is zoned B‐1 Commercial District. The project complies with all requirements of the B‐1 Commercial District. B. Compliance with the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance, Chapter 10 The applicant’s erosion and sediment control plan will be submitted and reviewed during final site plan submission. The applicant will be required to comply with staff comments. C. Compliance with General Standard for site plans (Sections 34‐800 ‐ 34‐827) 1. General site plan information, including but not limited to project, property, zoning, site, and traffic information: Found on Sheet 1. 2. Existing condition and adjacent property information: Found on Sheet 2. 3. Phasing plan: The project will be constructed in one phase per Sheet 1. 4. Topography and grading: Found on Sheet 3. 5. Existing landscape and trees: Found on Sheet 2. 4 6. The name and location of all water features: N/A. 7. One hundred‐year flood plain limits: N/A. 8. Existing and proposed streets and associated traffic information: Reference to Traffic Impact Analysis noted on Sheet 1 (see Attachment 3). No new roads are proposed. 9. Location and size of existing water and sewer infrastructure: Found on Sheet 2. 10. Proposed layout for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drain facilities: Found of Sheets 3 and 5. 11. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements: Found on Sheet 3. 12. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection: Found on Sheet 3. 13. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements: Found on Sheets 3, 4, 5, 6. 14. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use: Found on Sheet 3 (right‐of‐way to be dedicated behind the sidewalk on 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Street). 15. Landscape plan: Found on Sheet 3. 16. Where deemed appropriate by the director due to intensity of development: a. Estimated traffic generation figures for the site based upon current ITE rates: Found in the Traffic Impact Analysis. b. Estimated vehicles per day: Found in the Traffic Impact Analysis. D. Additional information to be shown on the site plan as deemed necessary by the director or Commission in order to provide sufficient information for the director or Commission to adequately review the site plan. The Special Use Permit granted by City Council on July 5, 2017 includes the following conditions, which are provided on Sheet 1 of the preliminary site plan. 1. A maximum of 180 bedrooms shall be allowed on the subject property. No owner or operator of the multifamily dwelling shall enter into lease agreements with tenants on a bedroom‐by‐bedroom basis. Up to 50% of the residential units may be two‐ bedroom units. All residential units will be either one or two‐bedroom units. Found on Sheet 1. 5 2. The applicant has notified the City that it has elected to provide affordable housing units to satisfy the requirements of City Code Sec. 34‐12. Each of the required affordable housing units shall be provided either on‐site or off‐site, on land within the adjacent Downtown or Downtown North Mixed Use Corridor zoning Districts. Condition to be resolved at final site plan approval. 3. No demolition of existing building(s) or improvements shall be commenced prior to the approval of a final site plan and approval of a permit authorizing land‐disturbing activities pursuant to City Code Sec. 10‐9. Land disturbance associated with demolition shall be planned and taken into account within the stormwater management plan for the development, as part of a common plan of development for the Subject Property. Condition to be resolved at final site plan approval. 4. The design, height, and other characteristics of the development shall remain, in all material aspects, as described within the Application Materials. Any change in use of the proposed building, and any substantial change of the proposed development, shall require a modification of this SUP—specifically including, but without limitation, any change to the following matters depicted and/or represented within the Application Materials, as supplemented through June 12, 2017: a) The provision of two (2) open air courtyards in the front and rear of the building, with the front courtyard visible from E Jefferson Street; Found on Sheets 1 and 3. b) The provision of three (3) plazas: one along the entire 10th Street NE frontage; one, at the corner of 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Streets; and one, at the corner of 11th Street NE and East Jefferson Streets; Found on Sheets 1 and 3. c) The provision of direct pedestrian access from East Jefferson Street to the on‐site means of access to the building; Found on Sheet 3. d) The entire eastern half of the building, as measured along the E Jefferson Street frontage, shall be a maximum of three (3) stories in height; Found on Sheets 1, 3, and 4. e) A building setback of at least 30 feet, along no less than 30% of the building’s 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE frontages. Found on Sheets 3 and 4. f) A building setback at least 30 feet along no less than 25% of the site’s E Jefferson Street frontage, and a setback of at least 20 feet along the building’s remaining frontage along E Jefferson Street. Found on Sheets 3 and 4. g) Stepbacks: i. A stepback at least 10 feet from the required minimum 20 foot setback above the second (2nd) story of the building, along 100% of the building’s 11th Street N.E. frontage, Found on Sheets 1 and 4. ii. A stepback of at least 25 feet from the required minimum five (5) foot setback above the second story of the building, along 100% of the 6 eastern half of the building’s E Jefferson Street frontage. Found on Sheets 1 and 4. h) No more than 15,000 square feet of commercial space shall be allowed on the Subject Property. Found on Sheet 1. 5. All street trees shall be a minimum of three (3) inch caliper at planting. Regardless of canopy size, street trees shall be spaced no more than 25 feet apart on the 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE frontages, and no more than 35 feet apart on the E Jefferson Street frontage. Found on Sheets 1 and 3. 6. The landowner shall provide the following pedestrian facilities, along with a dedication of land or suitable permanent easements: a) Construction of sidewalk on 10th Street NE along the entire frontage of the Subject Property, minimum seven (7) feet in width. If the sidewalk cannot be constructed within existing public right‐of‐way, then a reduction of two (2) feet shall be applied to the building setbacks and stepbacks required for 10th Street NE by Z.O. Sec. 34‐457 and condition (4), above. Found on Sheet 3. b) Construction of curb extensions into (i) the intersection of 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Street adjacent to the Subject Property on both sides of the staggered intersection, and (ii) the intersection of 11th Street NE and E Jefferson Streets adjacent to the Subject Property, all as shown in the site plan dated June 9, 2017. Curb extensions shall include ADA‐compliant perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crosswalk. A receiving ADA‐compliant curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. Found on Sheet 3. c) Install high visibility crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings at both the 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Street and 11th Street NE and E Jefferson Street intersections, as shown in the provided site plan dated June 9, 2017. Found on Sheet 3. d) Extend concrete sidewalk across all driveway/alley entrances in full width and at a maximum two (2) percent cross slope, as shown in the site plan dated June 9, 2017. Found on Sheet 3. e) If such is approved by the City, relocation of the existing two way stop located at the intersection of 11th Street NE and Little High Street, in order to stop traffic traveling on Little High Street, to an alternate location designated by the City Traffic Engineer. Condition to be resolved at final site plan approval per Condition 6g below. f) Construction of curb extensions and high visibility crosswalks at the intersection of 11th Street NE and Little High Street. Curb extensions shall include ADA‐compliant perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crosswalk. An ADA‐compliant receiving curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. Condition to be resolved at final site plan approval per Condition 6g below. 7 g) All of the items referenced in (a)‐(f) above shall be shown on the final site plan for the development, and any dedications of land or conveyances of public easements shall be provided prior to final site plan approval. The Traffic Engineer is authorized to modify the dimensions of the facilities referenced in (a) through (f), above, as necessary to leave adequate right‐of‐ way available for future construction of bicycle lanes on 10th Street NE. Any such modification shall be shown within the final site plan for the development. Final construction plans for the public facilities referenced in (a)‐(f), above will be submitted to the City’s Traffic Engineer for approval, prior to commencement of construction. 7. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut‐off luminaires. Spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one‐half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right‐of‐way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. Found on Sheet 6. 8. There shall be no vehicular access to the Subject Property from the existing alley connecting the rear of the Subject Property to Little High Street. No more than one (1) vehicular access point (“curb cut”) shall be allowed on 11th Street NE, unless additional any access point(s) on 11th Street NE are determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary for the public safety. Found on Sheet 3. 9. Bicycle storage will be provided on‐site, to the standards set forth within City Code Sec. 34‐881(2) of the Charlottesville City Code (Bicycle Storage Facilities), or the most current Bicycle Storage Facilities code applicable to this multifamily dwelling at time of development. Found on Sheets 1, 3, and 4. 10. Low impact development techniques such as rain gardens and permeable pavers shall be constructed/ installed as part of the development, and the nature, location and specifications for all such LID techniques shall be shown on the final site plan. Found on Sheet 3. 11. The redevelopment of the subject property shall include the installation of solar energy systems sufficient, at a minimum, to offset the electrical usage in the common areas of the development. Condition to be resolved at final site plan approval. 12. For every 1,500 square feet of commercial space, there shall be a reduction of one (1) dwelling unit from the maximum number of dwelling units (127) allowed under this special use permit. Found on Sheet 1. 8 E. Compliance with Additional Standards for Specific Uses (Sections 34‐930 ‐ 34‐938) No improvements regulated by these sections are proposed. Public Comments Received Staff has received correspondence from members of the public concerned with the modification to the rear of the building (northern side of the property) and maintenance of the maximum three story height set for the eastern half of the building. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan. Attachments 1. Preliminary Site Plan dated November 15, 2017 2. Special Use Permit Resolution dated July 5, 2017 3. Traffic Impact Analysis dated May 22, 2017 4. Conceptual Site Plan Associated with SUP dated June 9, 2017 9 RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING AT 1101 EAST JEFFERSON STREET CONTAINING UP TO 87 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WHEREAS, Jefferson Medical Building Limited Partnership (“Applicant”), is the owner of certain property located at 1101 East Jefferson Street, identified on City Tax Map 54 as Parcel 127 (Tax Map Parcel Id. # 540127000) and containing approximately 1.46 acres (“Subject Property”), pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-480, has requested City Council to approve a special use permit to authorize the development of the Subject Property as a multifamily dwelling containing up to 87 dwelling units per acre (the proposed “Special Use”). The Subject Property is within the City’s B-1 (Commercial) zoning district, with frontage on 10th Street, N.E., East Jefferson Street and 11th Street, N.E.; and WHEREAS, the requested Special Use is generally described within the Applicant’s application materials submitted in connection with SP16-00001, including: (i) the original application materials dated September 16 and 19, 2016; (ii) a supplemental narrative dated June 12, 2017, and (iii) a revised proposed site plan dated June 9, 2017, submitted to NDS on June 12, 2017 (collectively, the “Application Materials”); and WHEREAS, the existing building at the Subject Property is proposed to be demolished and removed to allow for establishment of the Special Use and related buildings and improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the original application materials dated September 16 and 19, 2016, and the City’s Staff Report pertaining thereto, and following a joint public hearing, duly advertised and conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council on October 11, 2016, the Commission voted to recommend that City Council should deny the requested Special Use; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of: the comments received during the joint public hearing, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the Staff Report, updated through July 5, 2017, and supplemental materials provided by the Applicant (dated June 9 and 12, 2017) as well as the factors set forth within Sec. 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this Council finds and determines that granting the requested special use permit subject to suitable conditions would serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that, pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-480, a special use permit is hereby approved and granted to authorize a multifamily dwelling containing not more than 87 dwelling units per acre (approximately 127.02 units, maximum), subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of 180 bedrooms shall be allowed on the subject property. No owner or operator of the multifamily dwelling shall enter into lease agreements with tenants on a bedroom-by-bedroom basis. Up to 50% of the residential units may be two-bedroom units. All residential units will be either one or two-bedroom units. 2. The applicant has notified the City that it has elected to provide affordable housing units to satisfy the requirements of City Code Sec. 34-12. Each of the required affordable housing units shall be provided either on-site or off-site, on land within the adjacent Downtown or Downtown North Mixed Use Corridor zoning Districts. 3. No demolition of existing building(s) or improvements shall be commenced prior to the approval of a final site plan and approval of a permit authorizing land-disturbing activities pursuant to City Code Sec. 10-9. Land disturbance associated with demolition shall be planned and taken into account within the stormwater management plan for the development, as part of a common plan of development for the Subject Property. 4. The design, height, and other characteristics of the development shall remain, in all material aspects, as described within the Application Materials. Any change in use of the proposed building, and any substantial change of the proposed development, shall require a modification of this SUP—specifically including, but without limitation, any change to the following matters depicted and/or represented within the Application Materials, as supplemented through June 12, 2017: a. The provision of two (2) open air courtyards in the front and rear of the building, with the front courtyard visible from E Jefferson Street; b. The provision of three (3) plazas: one along the entire 10th Street NE frontage; one, at the corner of 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Streets; and one, at the corner of 11th Street NE and East Jefferson Streets; c. The provision of direct pedestrian access from East Jefferson Street to the on-site means of access to the building; d. The entire eastern half of the building, as measured along the E Jefferson Street frontage, shall be a maximum of three (3) stories in height; e. A building setback of at least 30 feet, along no less than 30% of the building’s 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE frontages. f. A building setback at least 30 feet along no less than 25% of the site’s E Jefferson Street frontage, and a setback of at least 20 feet along the building’s remaining frontage along E Jefferson Street. g. Stepbacks: (i) A stepback at least 10 feet from the required minimum 20 foot setback above the second (2nd) story of the building, along 100% of the building’s 11th Street N.E. frontage, and (ii) A stepback of at least 25 feet from the required minimum five (5) foot setback above the second story of the building, along 100% of the eastern half of the building’s E Jefferson Street frontage. h. No more than 15,000 square feet of commercial space shall be allowed on the Subject Property. 5. All street trees shall be a minimum of three (3) inch caliper at planting. Regardless of canopy size, street trees shall be spaced no more than 25 feet apart on the 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE frontages, and no more than 35 feet apart on the E Jefferson Street frontage. 6. The landowner shall provide the following pedestrian facilities, along with a dedication of land or suitable permanent easements: a. Construction of sidewalk on 10th Street NE along the entire frontage of the Subject Property, minimum seven (7) feet in width. If the sidewalk cannot be constructed within existing public right-of-way, then a reduction of two (2) feet shall be applied to the building setbacks and stepbacks required for 10th Street NE by Z.O. Sec. 34-457 and condition (4), above. b. Construction of curb extensions into (i) the intersection of 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Street adjacent to the Subject Property on both sides of the staggered intersection, and (ii) the intersection of 11th Street NE and E Jefferson Streets adjacent to the Subject Property, all as shown in the site plan dated June 9, 2017. Curb extensions shall include ADA-compliant perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crosswalk. A receiving ADA-compliant curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. c. Install high visibility crosswalks at all pedestrian crossings at both the 10th Street NE and E Jefferson Street and 11th Street NE and E Jefferson Street intersections, as shown in the provided site plan dated June 9, 2017. d. Extend concrete sidewalk across all driveway/alley entrances in full width and at a maximum two (2) percent cross slope, as shown in the site plan dated June 9, 2017. e. If such is approved by the City, relocation of the existing two way stop located at the intersection of 11th Street NE and Little High Street, in order to stop traffic traveling on Little High Street, to an alternate location designated by the City Traffic Engineer. f. Construction of curb extensions and high visibility crosswalks at the intersection of 11th Street NE and Little High Street. Curb extensions shall include ADA-compliant perpendicular curb ramps aligned with each pedestrian crosswalk. An ADA-compliant receiving curb ramp shall be installed as necessary on the opposite end of each pedestrian crosswalk. g. All of the items referenced in (a)-(f) above shall be shown on the final site plan for the development, and any dedications of land or conveyances of public easements shall be provided prior to final site plan approval. The Traffic Engineer is authorized to modify the dimensions of the facilities referenced in (a) through (f), above, as necessary to leave adequate right-of-way available for future construction of bicycle lanes on 10th Street NE. Any such modification shall be shown within the final site plan for the development. Final construction plans for the public facilities referenced in (a)-(f), above will be submitted to the City’s Traffic Engineer for approval, prior to commencement of construction. 7. All outdoor lighting and light fixtures shall be full cut-off luminaires. Spillover light from luminaires onto public roads and onto property adjacent property shall not exceed one-half (½) foot candle. A spillover shall be measured horizontally and vertically at the property line or edge of right-of-way or easement, whichever is closer to the light source. 8. There shall be no vehicular access to the Subject Property from the existing alley connecting the rear of the Subject Property to Little High Street. No more than one (1) vehicular access point (“curb cut”) shall be allowed on 11th Street NE, unless additional any access point(s) on 11th Street NE are determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary for the public safety. 9. Bicycle storage will be provided on-site, to the standards set forth within City Code Sec. 34-881(2) of the Charlottesville City Code (Bicycle Storage Facilities), or the most current Bicycle Storage Facilities code applicable to this multifamily dwelling at time of development. 10. Low impact development techniques such as rain gardens and permeable pavers shall be constructed/ installed as part of the development, and the nature, location and specifications for all such LID techniques shall be shown on the final site plan. 11. The redevelopment of the subject property shall include the installation of solar energy systems sufficient, at a minimum, to offset the electrical usage in the common areas of the development. 12. For every 1,500 square feet of commercial space, there shall be a reduction of one (1) dwelling unit from the maximum number of dwelling units (127) allowed under this special use permit. Approved by Council July 5, 2017 Clerk of Council May 22, 2017 Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. City of Charlottesville 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Phone: (434) 970-3182 Reference: East Jefferson Street Apartments – Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Duncan, Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. (RKA) has performed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to support the proposed redevelopment of the property on the north side of East Jefferson Street between 10th Street NE and 11th Street NE. The property currently has a 20,300 square foot (s.f.) medical office building, with two full-movement driveways on East Jefferson Street, and one full-movement driveway on 10th Street NE. The proposed redevelopment includes replacing the medical office building with 126 apartment units, up to 8,000 s.f. of specialty retail space, and a 2,000 s.f. coffee / donut shop without a drive-through window. The proposed access plan includes removing both driveways on East Jefferson Street, and adding one new full- movement driveway on 11th Street NE. The plan includes constructing a two-level below-grade parking deck with 246 spaces. If approved, the redevelopment is expected to be complete in 2019. Figure 1 shows the site location and study intersections. The purpose of this letter report is to provide the following:  Trip generation calculations  Trip generation study at City Walk Apartments  Trip generation study at two local coffee shops  Capacity analysis of study intersections  Multi-way stop analysis for the intersection of Little High Street at 11th Street Existing Roadway Conditions 10th Street NE is a two-lane local collector with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 4,000 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of 25 mph across the property frontage. East Jefferson Street is a two-lane local collector with an ADT volume of approximately 1,700 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of 25 mph across the property frontage. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 2 of 12 11th Street NE is a two-lane local collector with an ADT volume of approximately 1,500 vehicles per day, and a posted speed limit of 25 mph across the property frontage. Existing Traffic Volumes The existing 2016 AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 to 6:00 PM) turning movement counts were conducted by RKA and Burns Service, Inc. at the following intersections during the week of September 12, 2016:  10th Street NE at East Jefferson Street  11th Street NE at East Jefferson Street  East Jefferson Street at three existing medical office driveways Burns Service, Inc. also performed a 14-hour (6:00 AM to 8:00 PM) turning movement count at the following intersection during the week of May 8, 2017:  Little High Street at 11th Street NE The existing peak hour volumes were increased and balanced between the study intersections, and are shown in Figure 2. All of the traffic count data is enclosed for reference. Background Traffic Growth The existing medical office trips were removed from the existing driveways, but those trips were not subtracted from the main intersections. Additionally, based on a review of the 2012 and 2015 ADT’s, the existing 2016 peak hour traffic volumes were grown by an annual rate of 3.0% for three years to estimate the 2019 no-build traffic volumes, which are shown in Figure 3. Based on discussion with the City, we understand there are no approved developments near this site. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 3 of 12 Trip Generation The trip generation potential of the proposed redevelopment during a typical weekday, AM peak hour and PM peak hour was estimated using the methodologies published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual – 9th Edition. Table 1 shows the trip generation potential of the proposed redevelopment. Table 1 ITE Trip Generation – 9th Edition – Weekday Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use (vph) (vph) Size (vpd) (ITE Land Use Code) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Proposed Uses Apartments 126 units 419 419 13 51 51 28 (220) Specialty Retail Center 8,000 s.f. 190 190 4 2 18 23 (826) Coffee / Donut Shop without Drive–Through Window 2,000 s.f. 748 748 111 106 41 41 (936) Subtotal 1,357 1,357 128 159 110 92 ITE Internal Capture – 8% AM / 37% PM -305 -305 -11 -11 -37 -37 Driveway Volumes 1,052 1,052 117 148 73 55 ITE Pass-By Trips: Specialty Retail – 34% -50 -50 -0 -0 -4 -4 Coffee / Donut Shop – 49% AM / 50% PM* -287 -287 -48 -48 -12 -12 33% Adjustment for -347 -347 -38 -48 -24 -18 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Trips Net New External Trips 368 368 31 52 33 21 Existing Use Medical Office 20,300 s.f. 366 366 39 10 20 52 (720) Net Change in External Trips +2 +2 -8 +42 +13 -31 * ITE does not publish pass-by rates for coffee / donut shops. In this case, the pass-by rates for a fast-food restaurant were applied. It is reasonable to assume that the actual pass-by rates for coffee / donut shops are significantly higher, which would result in fewer new trips. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 4 of 12 Note that the existing medical office trips were not subtracted out of the background traffic volumes at the study intersections. Specialty retail space and coffee / donut shops attract pass-by trips, which are made by drivers who are already driving by the site today, and will visit these uses in the future because they are convenient. Table 1 shows the ITE pass-by trip adjustments that could be applied. In this case, the pass-by adjustments were not applied, which results in more new trips in the traffic projections. Note that the trip generation of the coffee / donut shop is based on the ITE trip rates, which are significantly higher than expected with the proposed coffee shop because most of the shops surveyed by ITE are part of large chains, and located on major thoroughfares. The proposed shop will likely be locally-owned and focused on serving the neighborhood. To confirm, RKA counted two local coffee shops, and those results are presented later in this report. Trip Generation Study at City Walk Apartments A traffic count was conducted by Burns Service, Inc. at the intersection of Water Street at City Walk Way during the week of September 12, 2016. The purpose of the count was to determine an appropriate pedestrian reduction by comparing similar apartments in Charlottesville. Table 2 shows a comparison of the trip generation potential of City Walk Apartments based on the ITE trip rates, and the actual traffic counts. Table 2 City Walk Apartments Trip Generation Comparison – 9th Edition – Weekday Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use (vph) (vph) Size (vpd) (ITE Land Use Code) Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Apartments 301 units 974 974 30 121 119 64 (220) Actual Counts 301 units - - 10 88 69 30 - - -67% -27% -42% -53% Compared to ITE - - -35% -46% The number of vehicle trips entering and exiting City Walk Apartments is approximately 35% lower than what ITE predicts during the AM peak hour, and approximately 46% lower during the PM peak hour. Therefore, the 33% adjustment shown in Table 1 for the proposed East Jefferson Street apartments is reasonable. However, in this case, the reduction was not applied, which results in more new trips in the traffic projections. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 5 of 12 Trip Generation Study at Local Coffee Shops An AM peak hour (7:00 to 9:00 AM) pedestrian count was conducted by Burns Service, Inc. at two local coffee shops during the week of April 24 to determine an appropriate trip generation rate for the proposed coffee shop. Shenandoah Joe’s is a 3,200 s.f. coffee shop on Preston Avenue at 10th Street NW, and Milli Coffee Roasters is a 1,800 s.f. coffee shop located on Preston Avenue at McIntire Road. Table 3 shows a comparison of the trip generation potential of the local coffee / donut shops based on the ITE trip rates, and the actual traffic counts. Table 3 Local Coffee Shops Trip Generation Comparison – 9th Edition – Weekday AM Peak Hour Location Size (vph) Enter Exit ITE Trip Generation for Coffee / Donut Shop 3,200 s.f. 177 170 without Drive-Through Window (936) Shenandoah Joe’s – Preston Avenue 3,200 s.f. 76 70 ITE Trip Generation for 3,200 s.f. 19 16 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) ITE Trip Generation for Coffee / Donut Shop 2,000 s.f. 111 106 without Drive-Through Window (936) Proposed East Jefferson Coffee Shop 2,000 s.f. 41 39 ITE Trip Generation for 2,000 s.f. 12 10 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) ITE Trip Generation for Coffee / Donut Shop 1,800 s.f. 100 96 without Drive-Through Window (936) Milli Coffee Roasters – Preston Avenue 1,800 s.f. 31 22 ITE Trip Generation for 1,800 s.f. 11 9 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant (932) Based on the Shenandoah Joe and Milli Coffee Roasters data, the proposed coffee shop is expected to generate only 80 trips during the AM peak hour, which is approximately 63% lower than the 217 AM peak hour trips predicted by ITE. This analysis is based on the ITE trip rates, which result in significantly more trips than other local coffee shops. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 6 of 12 Site Traffic Distribution The following site traffic distribution was assumed for vehicle trips based on a review of the existing traffic volumes, the adjacent roadway network, and engineering judgement:  30% to / from the north on 10th Street  30% to / from the south on 10th Street  15% to / from the west on East Jefferson Street  15% to / from the north on 11th Street  5% to / from the south on 11th Street  5% to / from the east on East Jefferson Street The following site traffic distribution was assumed for the pedestrian and bicycle trips:  55% to / from the west on East Jefferson Street  20% to / from the south on 10th Street  10% to / from the north on 10th Street  10% to / from the north on 11th Street  5% to / from the south on 11th Street The vehicle trips are assumed to be medium and long-range trips, so a significant percentage of those trips are assigned to / from the US 250 Bypass. The pedestrian and bicycle trips are assumed to be short-range trips, which will be oriented toward the downtown area. Figures 4 and 5 show the site trip distribution for vehicles and pedestrian / bicycles. Figure 6 shows the vehicle site trip assignment, and the build 2019 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 7 of 12 Traffic Capacity Analysis Traffic capacity analysis for the study intersections was performed using Synchro 9.1, which is a comprehensive software package that allows the user to model signalized and unsignalized intersections to determine levels-of-service based on the thresholds specified in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Table 4 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 10th Street NE at East Jefferson Street, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 4 Level-of-Service Summary for 10th Street NE at East Jefferson Street AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE CONDITION GROUP Overall Overall Lane Queue Lane Queue LOS LOS LOS (ft) LOS (ft) (Delay) (Delay) EBL/T/R1 B 10 C 35 Existing 2016 WBL/T/R1 B 13 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 0 N/A3 A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 3 A 3 EBL/T/R1 B 10 C 48 No-Build 2019 WBL/T/R1 B 15 3 B 10 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 0 N/A A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 3 A 3 EBL/T/R1 C 20 C 60 Build 2019 WBL/T/R1 B 13 3 B 10 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 0 N/A A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 3 A 3 1. Level of service for minor approach 2. Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of three vehicles or less. Note that the eastbound and westbound approaches are offset by 90 feet, and function as two three-leg intersections. Note that this intersection was modeled as one four-leg intersection, which results in longer delays and queues because a four-leg intersection has 32 traffic conflict points, but a three-leg intersection has only 9 traffic conflict points. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 8 of 12 Table 5 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 11th Street NE at East Jefferson Street, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 5 Level-of-Service Summary for 11th Street NE at East Jefferson Street AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE CONDITION GROUP Overall Overall Lane Queue Lane Queue LOS LOS LOS (ft) LOS (ft) (Delay) (Delay) EBL/T/R1 A 5 B 10 Existing 2016 WBL/T/R1 B 5 3 B 5 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 3 N/A A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 0 A 0 EBL/T/R1 A 8 B 13 No-Build 2019 WBL/T/R1 B 5 3 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 3 N/A A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 0 A 0 EBL/T/R1 B 8 B 13 Build 2019 WBL/T/R1 B 8 3 B 8 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R2 A 3 N/A A 0 N/A3 SBL/T/R2 A 3 A 0 1. Level of service for minor approach 2. Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 9 of 12 Table 6 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of Little High Street at 11th Street NE, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 6 Level-of-Service Summary for Little High Street at 11th Street NE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE CONDITION GROUP Overall Overall Lane Queue Lane Queue LOS LOS LOS (ft) LOS (ft) (Delay) (Delay) EBL/T/R2 A 0 A 0 Existing 2016 WBL/T/R2 A 0 3 A 0 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R1 B 5 N/A B 10 N/A3 SBL/T/R1 B 15 B 8 EBL/T/R2 A 0 A 0 No-Build 2019 WBL/T/R2 A 0 3 A 0 Traffic Conditions NBL/T/R1 B 5 N/A B 10 N/A3 SBL/T/R1 B 18 B 10 Build 2019 EBL/T/R1 B 15 B 10 Traffic Conditions WBL/T/R1 B 13 3 B 8 with Stop control on NBL/T/R2 A 0 N/A A 0 N/A3 Little High Street SBL/T/R2 A 0 A 0 1. Level of service for minor approach 2. Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours under all scenarios, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. As described later in this report, we recommend switching the Stop control at this intersection to designate 11th Street as the major street, and Little High Street as the minor street. We also recommend installing bulbouts on the west side of the intersection to aid in traffic calming, and the shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 10 of 12 Table 7 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 10th Street NE at Site Driveway 1, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 7 Level-of-Service Summary for 10th Street NE at Site Driveway 1 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE CONDITION GROUP Overall Overall Lane Queue Lane Queue LOS LOS LOS (ft) LOS (ft) (Delay) (Delay) WBL/R1 B 25 B 8 Build 2019 Traffic Conditions NBT/R - - N/A3 - - N/A3 SBL/T2 A 3 A 3 1. Level of service for minor approach 2. Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours at build-out of the site, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. Table 8 summarizes the capacity analysis results for the unsignalized intersection of 11th Street NE at Site Driveway 2, and all of the Synchro output is enclosed for reference. Table 8 Level-of-Service Summary for 11th Street NE at Site Driveway 2 AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LANE CONDITION GROUP Overall Overall Lane Queue Lane Queue LOS LOS LOS (ft) LOS (ft) (Delay) (Delay) EBL/R1 A 3 A 3 Build 2019 Traffic Conditions NBL/T2 A 0 N/A3 A 0 N/A3 SBT/R - - - - 1. Level of service for minor approach 2. Level of service for major street left-turn movement 3. HCM methodology does not provide lane group or overall LOS, delay, and queue lengths for major street through movements or right turns at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analysis indicates that all movements at this intersection are projected to operate with short delays (less than 25 seconds) during the AM and PM peak hours at build-out of the site, with a queue length of one vehicle or less. No improvements are warranted or recommended at this intersection. Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 11 of 12 Multi-Way Stop Warrant Analysis A multi-way stop warrant analysis was performed for the intersection of Little High Street at 11th Street NE. Multi-way stop warrants are evaluated using the thresholds for intersection volume and collision history as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The following traffic volume thresholds must be met for at least 8 hours to warrant multi-way stop control:  The approach volumes on the major street approaches must exceed 300 vehicles per hour, and  The approach volumes on the minor street approaches must exceed 200 vehicles per hour During the traffic count, the 8:00 to 9:00 AM hour was the busiest, and the total approach volume at the intersection was only 254 vehicles. This is just over half the threshold needed to meet one hour of the warrant, so the traffic volumes are well below the thresholds for multi-way stop control. In order to meet the collision warrant for a multi-way stop, there must be five or more correctable collisions in a 12 month period at the intersection. Based on the data provided by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), there were no reported collisions at the intersection between January 2013 and December 2015, so that warrant is not met either. We understand that there is concern about the speed of traffic on eastbound Little High Street. Based on the 14 hour volume data, 11th Street had a total approach volume of 966 vehicles, and Little High Street had a total approach volume of 882 vehicles. The proposed redevelopment is projected to add approximately 315 vehicles per day to this segment of 11th Street. Therefore, we recommend switching the Stop control at this intersection to designate 11th Street as the major street, and Little High Street as the minor street. We also recommend installing bulbouts on the west side of the intersection to aid in traffic calming, and the shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. Note that this analysis includes several assumptions that overestimate the impact of the proposed redevelopment:  The capacity analysis in this TIA assumes no reduction for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips, even though a comparison of City Walk Apartments shows a 33% adjustment would be appropriate  The existing medical office trips were not subtracted from the study intersections  The trip generation of the coffee / donut shop results in a significantly higher number of trips because most of the shops surveyed by ITE are part of large chains, and located on major thoroughfares. The proposed shop will likely be locally-owned and focused on serving the neighborhood.  The proposed specialty retail space and coffee / donut shop will attract pass-by trips, but no adjustment for pass-by trips was made in this analysis  The intersection of 10th Street NE at East Jefferson Street was modeled as four-leg intersection instead of two three-leg intersections Mr. Brennen Duncan, P.E. Page 12of12 Figure 8 shows the recommended lane configuration. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please contact me at (804) 217-8560 if you have any questions about this report. Sincerely yours, Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. Carl Hultgren, P.E., PTOE Regional Manager Enclosures: Figures, Synchro output, Traffic count data, Multi-Way Stop warrant Copy to: Mr. David Mitchell, Southern Classic, Inc. Ms. Valerie Long, Williams Mullen Ms. Ashley Davies, Williams Mullen Mr. Scott Collins, P.E., Collins Engineering ------------------------- ~RAMEY KEMP """ASSOCIATES Inset Inset LEGEND N Study Intersection Site Boundary Overview East Jefferson Street Site Location and Study Apartments Intersections Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 1 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 70 (40) 11 (11) 3 (13) 5 (9) 36 (39) 11 (3) Little High Street (10) 15 (42) 15 (9) 3 (54) 26 (3) 3 292 (245) (3) 58 16 (13) 8 (22) 1 (4) Medical Driveway #1 (315) 193 (4) 6 Medical Medical Driveway #2 Driveway #3 236 (208) 32 (30) 25 (11) 45 (32) 47 (37) 30 (5) 3 (8) 5 (9) 4 (11) 21 (27) 3 (7) 3 (2) 0 (1) 19 (7) 10 (8) 2 (1) 4 (3) 8 (5) 73 (50) 72 (44) E Jefferson Street (1) 5 (6) 9 (49) 19 (13) 5 (72) 47 (67) 38 (35) 12 (33) 11 (10) 11 (233) 133 (8) 8 (15) 25 (45) 24 (60) 13 (32) 26 (4) 0 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour East Jefferson Street Existing (2016) Apartments Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 2 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 74 (43) 12 (12) 3 (14) 5 (10) 38 (41) 12 (3) Little High Street (11) 16 (45) 16 (10) 3 (57) 29 (3) 3 320 (272) (3) 62 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Medical Driveway #1 (349) 217 (0) 0 Medical Medical Driveway #2 Driveway #3 258 (227) 27 (12) 35 (33) 51 (40) 49 (34) 33 (5) 3 (9) 5 (10) 21 (8) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 23 (36) 11 (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (5) 83 (57) 83 (57) E Jefferson Street (54) 21 (0) 0 (0) 0 (14) 5 (43) 13 (85) 57 (85) 57 (11) 12 (255) 145 (9) 9 (36) 16 (16) 27 (47) 27 (66) 14 (35) 36 (4) 0 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour East Jefferson Street No Build (2019) Peak Hour Apartments Traffic Volumes Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 3 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 30% 15% 15% Little High Street (15%) 30% 15% (30%) (45%) Site Driveway (15%) 10% 45% (10%) Site (5%) (5%) (15%) (30%) 5% E Jefferson 15% Street 15% 5% 30% 5% 30% 5% 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X% (Y%) Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution XX% Regional Trip Distribution East Jefferson Street Site Trip Distribution Apartments for Vehicles Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 4 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 10% 10% 10% Little High Street (10%) 10% 10% (10%) (75%) Site Driveway (10%) 5% 75% (5%) Site (55%) (20%) (5%) E Jefferson 55% Street 55% 20% 5% 20% 5% 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X% (Y%) Entering (Exiting) Trip Distribution XX% Regional Trip Distribution East Jefferson Street Site Trip Distribution Apartments for Peds / Bikes Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 5 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 17 (11) Little High Street (8) 22 35 (22) 17 (11) 44 (16) 67 (25) Site Driveway (8) 22 (33) 53 (7) 12 (6) 15 Site 45 (17) 8 (3) 7 (3) 22 (8) 6 (3) E Jefferson Street (11) 18 (22) 35 (4) 6 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour East Jefferson Street Site Trip Assignment for Vehicles Apartments Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 6 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N 91 (54) 12 (12) 3 (14) 5 (10) 38 (41) 12 (3) Little High Street (11) 16 (45) 16 (10) 3 (65) 51 (3) 3 (3) 62 320 (272) 94 (49) 17 (11) 35 (22) 44 (16) 67 (25) Site Driveway (8) 22 (7) 12 (70) 35 (349) 217 (33) 53 (6) 15 Site 303 (244) 57 (37) 19 (13) 49 (20) 35 (33) 51 (40) 33 (5) 9 (12) 21 (8) 23 (36) 11 (9) 9 (5) E Jefferson Street (65) 39 (14) 5 (43) 13 (36) 16 (16) 27 (51) 33 (4) 0 (11) 12 (277) 180 (9) 9 (66) 14 (35) 36 10th Street NE 11th Street NE LEGEND X (Y) AM (PM) Peak Hour East Jefferson Street Build (2019) Peak Hour Apartments Traffic Volumes Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 7 Remove Stop Control 10th Street NE 11th Street NE N Install Stop Control Little High Street Install Stop Control and Curb Bulbouts Remove Stop Control Site Driveway Existing Driveway Site Existing Driveway (To Be Removed) (To Be Removed) E Jefferson Street LEGEND 10th Street NE X' Storage (In Feet) 11th Street NE Existing Lane Proposed Lane Configuration Proposed Curb Bulbout East Jefferson Street Recommended Lane Configuration Apartments Charlottesville, Virginia Scale: Not to Scale Figure 8 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 19 12 13 10 19 47 11 133 8 32 236 25 Future Vol, veh/h 19 12 13 10 19 47 11 133 8 32 236 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 21 13 15 11 21 53 12 149 9 36 265 28 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 567 534 279 544 544 154 293 0 0 158 0 0 Stage 1 351 351 - 179 179 - - - - - - - Stage 2 216 183 - 365 365 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 434 452 760 450 446 892 1269 - - 1422 - - Stage 1 666 632 - 823 751 - - - - - - - Stage 2 786 748 - 654 623 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 381 434 760 418 428 892 1269 - - 1422 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 381 434 - 418 428 - - - - - - - Stage 1 659 613 - 815 743 - - - - - - - Stage 2 711 741 - 609 604 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.7 11.6 0.6 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1269 - - 465 628 1422 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.106 0.136 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 13.7 11.6 7.6 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.5 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 11 26 8 21 3 25 24 1 5 45 30 Future Vol, veh/h 5 11 26 8 21 3 25 24 1 5 45 30 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 15 36 11 29 4 34 33 1 7 62 41 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 214 199 82 223 218 34 103 0 0 34 0 0 Stage 1 96 96 - 102 102 - - - - - - - Stage 2 118 103 - 121 116 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 743 697 978 733 680 1039 1489 - - 1578 - - Stage 1 911 815 - 904 811 - - - - - - - Stage 2 887 810 - 883 800 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 700 678 978 680 661 1039 1489 - - 1578 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 700 678 - 680 661 - - - - - - - Stage 1 890 811 - 883 792 - - - - - - - Stage 2 832 791 - 831 796 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.6 10.6 3.7 0.5 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1489 - - 841 689 1578 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - 0.068 0.064 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9.6 10.6 7.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - A B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.2 0.2 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 15 58 11 36 11 3 26 3 6 70 3 Future Vol, veh/h 15 15 58 11 36 11 3 26 3 6 70 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 22 22 84 16 52 16 4 38 4 9 101 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 68 0 0 106 0 0 252 207 64 220 241 60 Stage 1 - - - - - - 107 107 - 92 92 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 145 100 - 128 149 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1533 - - 1485 - - 701 690 1000 736 660 1005 Stage 1 - - - - - - 898 807 - 915 819 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 858 812 - 876 774 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1533 - - 1485 - - 602 672 1000 688 643 1005 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 602 672 - 688 643 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 885 795 - 901 810 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 739 803 - 818 762 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 1.4 10.6 11.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 686 1533 - - 1485 - - 655 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.068 0.014 - - 0.011 - - 0.175 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 7.4 0 - 7.5 0 - 11.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.6 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 35 60 8 7 37 10 233 8 30 208 11 Future Vol, veh/h 49 35 60 8 7 37 10 233 8 30 208 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 38 66 9 8 41 11 256 9 33 229 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 608 588 235 635 589 260 241 0 0 265 0 0 Stage 1 301 301 - 282 282 - - - - - - - Stage 2 307 287 - 353 307 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 408 421 804 391 421 779 1326 - - 1299 - - Stage 1 708 665 - 725 678 - - - - - - - Stage 2 703 674 - 664 661 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 370 405 804 323 405 779 1326 - - 1299 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 370 405 - 323 405 - - - - - - - Stage 1 701 646 - 718 671 - - - - - - - Stage 2 652 667 - 557 642 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 11.9 0.3 0.9 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1326 - - 491 581 1299 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.322 0.098 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 15.8 11.9 7.8 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.4 0.3 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 13 33 32 5 27 8 15 45 4 9 32 5 Future Vol, veh/h 13 33 32 5 27 8 15 45 4 9 32 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 41 40 6 34 10 19 56 5 11 40 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 184 165 43 202 165 59 46 0 0 61 0 0 Stage 1 66 66 - 96 96 - - - - - - - Stage 2 118 99 - 106 69 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 777 728 1027 756 728 1007 1562 - - 1542 - - Stage 1 945 840 - 911 815 - - - - - - - Stage 2 887 813 - 900 837 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 730 714 1027 684 714 1007 1562 - - 1542 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 730 714 - 684 714 - - - - - - - Stage 1 933 834 - 899 804 - - - - - - - Stage 2 830 802 - 816 831 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10 10.1 1.7 1.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1562 - - 819 754 1542 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.119 0.066 0.007 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 10 10.1 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.2 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Existing (2016) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 42 3 3 39 11 9 54 3 9 40 13 Future Vol, veh/h 10 42 3 3 39 11 9 54 3 9 40 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 13 53 4 4 49 14 11 68 4 11 50 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 63 0 0 56 0 0 175 149 54 178 144 56 Stage 1 - - - - - - 79 79 - 63 63 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 96 70 - 115 81 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - 1549 - - 788 743 1013 784 747 1011 Stage 1 - - - - - - 930 829 - 948 842 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 911 837 - 890 828 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1540 - - 1549 - - 729 734 1013 720 738 1011 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 729 734 - 720 738 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 922 822 - 939 839 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 840 834 - 807 821 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 0.4 10.5 10.1 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 743 1540 - - 1549 - - 779 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.111 0.008 - - 0.002 - - 0.099 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.5 7.4 0 - 7.3 0 - 10.1 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 21 13 14 11 21 51 12 145 9 35 258 27 Future Vol, veh/h 21 13 14 11 21 51 12 145 9 35 258 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 15 16 12 24 57 13 163 10 39 290 30 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 619 584 305 594 594 168 320 0 0 173 0 0 Stage 1 384 384 - 195 195 - - - - - - - Stage 2 235 200 - 399 399 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 401 423 735 417 418 876 1240 - - 1404 - - Stage 1 639 611 - 807 739 - - - - - - - Stage 2 768 736 - 627 602 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 345 404 735 383 399 876 1240 - - 1404 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 345 404 - 383 399 - - - - - - - Stage 1 631 590 - 797 730 - - - - - - - Stage 2 686 727 - 578 582 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 12.2 0.6 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1240 - - 428 595 1404 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.126 0.157 0.028 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 14.6 12.2 7.6 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.6 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 3 27 27 1 5 49 33 Future Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 3 27 27 1 5 49 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 22 49 12 32 4 37 37 1 7 67 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 232 215 90 251 238 38 112 0 0 38 0 0 Stage 1 103 103 - 112 112 - - - - - - - Stage 2 129 112 - 139 126 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 723 683 968 702 663 1034 1478 - - 1572 - - Stage 1 903 810 - 893 803 - - - - - - - Stage 2 875 803 - 864 792 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 677 662 968 634 643 1034 1478 - - 1572 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 677 662 - 634 643 - - - - - - - Stage 1 880 806 - 870 782 - - - - - - - Stage 2 815 782 - 794 788 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.8 10.9 3.7 0.4 HCM LOS A B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1478 - - 829 662 1572 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - 0.094 0.072 0.004 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 9.8 10.9 7.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - A B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.2 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 29 3 5 74 3 Future Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 29 3 5 74 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 23 90 17 55 17 4 42 4 7 107 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 72 0 0 113 0 0 268 221 68 237 258 64 Stage 1 - - - - - - 114 114 - 99 99 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 154 107 - 138 159 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1528 - - 1476 - - 685 678 995 717 646 1000 Stage 1 - - - - - - 891 801 - 907 813 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 848 807 - 865 766 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1528 - - 1476 - - 580 659 995 665 628 1000 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 580 659 - 665 628 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 877 788 - 892 803 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 723 797 - 802 754 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.3 1.4 10.8 11.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 671 1528 - - 1476 - - 639 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.076 0.015 - - 0.012 - - 0.186 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 7.4 0 - 7.5 0 - 11.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.7 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 43 66 9 8 40 11 255 9 33 227 12 Future Vol, veh/h 54 43 66 9 8 40 11 255 9 33 227 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 47 73 10 9 44 12 280 10 36 249 13 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 665 643 256 697 644 285 263 0 0 290 0 0 Stage 1 329 329 - 309 309 - - - - - - - Stage 2 336 314 - 388 335 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 374 392 783 356 391 754 1301 - - 1272 - - Stage 1 684 646 - 701 660 - - - - - - - Stage 2 678 656 - 636 643 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 334 375 783 282 374 754 1301 - - 1272 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 334 375 - 282 374 - - - - - - - Stage 1 676 625 - 693 653 - - - - - - - Stage 2 623 649 - 516 622 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.1 12.6 0.3 1 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1301 - - 452 536 1272 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.396 0.117 0.029 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - 18.1 12.6 7.9 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 1.9 0.4 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 9 16 47 4 10 34 5 Future Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 9 16 47 4 10 34 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 45 44 6 45 11 20 59 5 13 43 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 200 175 46 216 175 61 49 0 0 64 0 0 Stage 1 71 71 - 101 101 - - - - - - - Stage 2 129 104 - 115 74 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 759 718 1023 740 718 1004 1558 - - 1538 - - Stage 1 939 836 - 905 811 - - - - - - - Stage 2 875 809 - 890 833 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 702 702 1023 663 702 1004 1558 - - 1538 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 702 702 - 663 702 - - - - - - - Stage 1 927 828 - 893 800 - - - - - - - Stage 2 806 798 - 798 826 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 10.3 1.8 1.5 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1558 - - 806 738 1538 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.132 0.085 0.008 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 10.1 10.3 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.3 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA No-Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Steet Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 45 3 3 41 12 10 57 3 10 43 14 Future Vol, veh/h 11 45 3 3 41 12 10 57 3 10 43 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 14 56 4 4 51 15 13 71 4 13 54 18 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 66 0 0 60 0 0 188 160 58 189 154 59 Stage 1 - - - - - - 86 86 - 66 66 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 102 74 - 123 88 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1536 - - 1544 - - 772 732 1008 771 738 1007 Stage 1 - - - - - - 922 824 - 945 840 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 904 833 - 881 822 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1536 - - 1544 - - 709 723 1008 704 729 1007 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 709 723 - 704 729 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 914 817 - 936 837 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 829 831 - 794 815 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.4 0.4 10.6 10.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 730 1536 - - 1544 - - 769 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.12 0.009 - - 0.002 - - 0.109 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.6 7.4 0 - 7.3 0 - 10.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - - 0 - - 0.4 Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 39 13 14 11 21 51 12 180 9 35 303 49 Future Vol, veh/h 39 13 14 11 21 51 12 180 9 35 303 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 44 15 16 12 24 57 13 202 10 39 340 55 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 722 686 368 696 708 207 396 0 0 212 0 0 Stage 1 447 447 - 234 234 - - - - - - - Stage 2 275 239 - 462 474 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 342 370 677 356 360 833 1163 - - 1358 - - Stage 1 591 573 - 769 711 - - - - - - - Stage 2 731 708 - 580 558 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 290 352 677 324 342 833 1163 - - 1358 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 290 352 - 324 342 - - - - - - - Stage 1 583 552 - 759 702 - - - - - - - Stage 2 649 699 - 531 537 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.3 13.2 0.5 0.7 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1163 - - 344 530 1358 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.216 0.176 0.029 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 18.3 13.2 7.7 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.8 0.6 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 9 27 33 1 19 57 33 Future Vol, veh/h 5 16 36 9 23 9 27 33 1 19 57 33 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 22 49 12 32 12 37 45 1 26 78 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 295 274 101 308 295 46 123 0 0 47 0 0 Stage 1 153 153 - 120 120 - - - - - - - Stage 2 142 121 - 188 175 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 657 633 954 644 616 1023 1464 - - 1560 - - Stage 1 849 771 - 884 796 - - - - - - - Stage 2 861 796 - 814 754 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 602 605 954 574 589 1023 1464 - - 1560 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 602 605 - 574 589 - - - - - - - Stage 1 827 757 - 861 775 - - - - - - - Stage 2 795 775 - 736 740 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 11.1 3.3 1.3 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1464 - - 786 645 1560 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - 0.099 0.087 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10.1 11.1 7.3 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.3 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Steet Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 51 3 5 91 3 Future Vol, veh/h 16 16 62 12 38 12 3 51 3 5 91 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 23 23 90 17 55 17 4 74 4 7 132 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 270 236 134 290 236 76 136 0 0 78 0 0 Stage 1 149 149 - 85 85 - - - - - - - Stage 2 121 87 - 205 151 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 683 665 915 662 665 985 1448 - - 1520 - - Stage 1 854 774 - 923 824 - - - - - - - Stage 2 883 823 - 797 772 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 624 660 915 577 660 985 1448 - - 1520 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 624 660 - 577 660 - - - - - - - Stage 1 851 770 - 920 822 - - - - - - - Stage 2 807 821 - 694 768 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.4 11 0.4 0.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1448 - - 799 685 1520 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 - - 0.171 0.131 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 - 10.4 11 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.6 0.5 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 4: 10th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 67 44 217 53 35 320 Future Vol, veh/h 67 44 217 53 35 320 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 73 48 236 58 38 348 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 689 265 0 0 293 0 Stage 1 265 - - - - - Stage 2 424 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 412 774 - - 1269 - Stage 1 779 - - - - - Stage 2 660 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 397 774 - - 1269 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 - - - - - Stage 1 779 - - - - - Stage 2 636 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 0 0.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 492 1269 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.245 0.03 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14.7 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1 0.1 - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 4 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 5: 11th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 15 12 35 94 17 Future Vol, veh/h 22 15 12 35 94 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 24 16 13 38 102 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 175 111 121 0 - 0 Stage 1 111 - - - - - Stage 2 64 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 815 942 1467 - - - Stage 1 914 - - - - - Stage 2 959 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 808 942 1467 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 808 - - - - - Stage 1 914 - - - - - Stage 2 950 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.4 1.9 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1467 - 857 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - 0.047 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.5 0 9.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 5 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 1: 10th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 43 66 9 8 40 11 277 9 33 244 20 Future Vol, veh/h 65 43 66 9 8 40 11 277 9 33 244 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 71 47 73 10 9 44 12 304 10 36 268 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 712 690 279 746 697 309 290 0 0 314 0 0 Stage 1 352 352 - 334 334 - - - - - - - Stage 2 360 338 - 412 363 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 347 368 760 330 365 731 1272 - - 1246 - - Stage 1 665 632 - 680 643 - - - - - - - Stage 2 658 641 - 617 625 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 309 351 760 259 348 731 1272 - - 1246 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 309 351 - 259 348 - - - - - - - Stage 1 658 610 - 673 636 - - - - - - - Stage 2 603 634 - 497 603 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.9 13.1 0.3 0.9 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1272 - - 415 507 1246 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.461 0.124 0.029 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - 20.9 13.1 8 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 2.4 0.4 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 1 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 2: 11th Street NE & E Jefferson Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 12 16 51 4 13 37 5 Future Vol, veh/h 14 36 35 5 36 12 16 51 4 13 37 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 18 45 44 6 45 15 20 64 5 16 46 6 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 218 191 49 232 191 66 53 0 0 69 0 0 Stage 1 82 82 - 106 106 - - - - - - - Stage 2 136 109 - 126 85 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 738 704 1020 723 704 998 1553 - - 1532 - - Stage 1 926 827 - 900 807 - - - - - - - Stage 2 867 805 - 878 824 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 678 687 1020 646 687 998 1553 - - 1532 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 678 687 - 646 687 - - - - - - - Stage 1 914 818 - 888 797 - - - - - - - Stage 2 795 795 - 785 815 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 10.4 1.7 1.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1553 - - 792 734 1532 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - 0.134 0.09 0.011 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 - 10.2 10.4 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.3 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 2 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 3: 11th Street NE & Little High Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 45 3 3 41 12 10 65 3 10 54 14 Future Vol, veh/h 11 45 3 3 41 12 10 65 3 10 54 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 14 56 4 4 51 15 13 81 4 13 68 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 242 211 76 239 218 83 85 0 0 85 0 0 Stage 1 101 101 - 108 108 - - - - - - - Stage 2 141 110 - 131 110 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 712 686 985 715 680 976 1512 - - 1512 - - Stage 1 905 811 - 897 806 - - - - - - - Stage 2 862 804 - 873 804 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 651 674 985 658 668 976 1512 - - 1512 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 651 674 - 658 668 - - - - - - - Stage 1 897 804 - 889 799 - - - - - - - Stage 2 787 797 - 802 797 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 10.6 0.9 0.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1512 - - 680 716 1512 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.108 0.098 0.008 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 - 10.9 10.6 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.4 0.3 0 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 3 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 4: 10th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 25 16 349 33 22 272 Future Vol, veh/h 25 16 349 33 22 272 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 17 379 36 24 296 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 740 397 0 0 415 0 Stage 1 397 - - - - - Stage 2 343 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 384 652 - - 1144 - Stage 1 679 - - - - - Stage 2 719 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 374 652 - - 1144 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 374 - - - - - Stage 1 679 - - - - - Stage 2 701 - - - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 0 0.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 449 1144 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.099 0.021 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.9 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS - - B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 4 East Jefferson Street Apartments - Charlottesville, VA Build (2019) Conditions 5: 11th Street NE & Access Road Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 6 7 70 49 11 Future Vol, veh/h 8 6 7 70 49 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 7 8 76 53 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 150 59 65 0 - 0 Stage 1 59 - - - - - Stage 2 91 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 842 1007 1537 - - - Stage 1 964 - - - - - Stage 2 933 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 838 1007 1537 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 838 - - - - - Stage 1 964 - - - - - Stage 2 928 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.1 0.7 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1537 - 903 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.4 0 9.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - Synchro 9 Report RKA Page 5 Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Jefferson at 10th - AM Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000002 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/14/2016 Equipment ID: 4792 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + Trucks 10 th Street E Jefferson Street 10 th Street E Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 20 2 0 22 1 1 0 0 2 0 12 2 0 14 0 0 4 0 4 42 07:15 AM 3 28 2 0 33 3 1 2 0 6 4 19 1 0 24 0 0 1 0 1 64 07:30 AM 4 27 5 0 36 3 1 2 0 6 1 30 1 0 32 1 4 1 0 6 80 07:45 AM 11 57 6 0 74 2 1 1 0 4 1 23 1 0 25 2 4 2 0 8 111 Total 18 132 15 0 165 9 4 5 0 18 6 84 5 0 95 3 8 8 0 19 297 08:00 AM 5 51 6 0 62 8 2 2 0 12 1 34 3 0 38 0 3 2 0 5 117 08:15 AM 7 52 9 0 68 21 6 2 0 29 4 39 0 0 43 5 4 8 0 17 157 08:30 AM 8 58 9 0 75 9 6 4 0 19 1 31 6 0 38 4 1 3 0 8 140 08:45 AM 5 75 8 0 88 2 5 2 0 9 2 29 2 0 33 4 4 6 0 14 144 Total 25 236 32 0 293 40 19 10 0 69 8 133 11 0 152 13 12 19 0 44 558 Grand Total 43 368 47 0 458 49 23 15 0 87 14 217 16 0 247 16 20 27 0 63 855 Apprch % 9.4 80.3 10.3 0 56.3 26.4 17.2 0 5.7 87.9 6.5 0 25.4 31.7 42.9 0 Total % 5 43 5.5 0 53.6 5.7 2.7 1.8 0 10.2 1.6 25.4 1.9 0 28.9 1.9 2.3 3.2 0 7.4 10 th Street Out In Total 293 458 751 43 368 47 0 Right Thru Left U-Turns 145 27 Right Thru Total Left Out 49 81 E Jefferson Street E Jefferson Street North 20 U-Turns Right Thru 63 23 In In 9/14/2016 07:00 AM 87 16 Left U-Turns 9/14/2016 08:45 AM 15 82 Cars + Trucks Out Total 0 168 0 Left Thru Right U-Turns 16 217 14 0 399 247 646 Out In Total 10 th Street Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Jefferson at 10th - PM Counted By: Lee Site Code : 00000001 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/13/2016 Equipment ID: 4791 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + Trucks 10 th Street E Jefferson Street 10th Street E Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turns App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 5 32 2 0 39 7 4 3 0 14 0 40 3 0 43 16 8 5 0 29 125 04:15 PM 5 45 3 0 53 3 3 3 0 9 1 43 1 0 45 6 2 8 0 16 123 04:30 PM 3 33 8 0 44 10 6 7 0 23 2 44 0 0 46 13 8 12 0 33 146 04:45 PM 6 41 4 0 51 9 2 3 0 14 3 47 5 0 55 10 6 9 0 25 145 Total 19 151 17 0 187 29 15 16 0 60 6 174 9 0 189 45 24 34 0 103 539 05:00 PM 2 47 6 0 55 14 3 3 0 20 2 63 3 0 68 21 10 15 0 46 189 05:15 PM 2 60 7 0 69 5 1 2 0 8 0 66 0 0 66 11 6 12 0 29 172 05:30 PM 1 60 8 0 69 9 1 0 0 10 2 57 2 0 61 18 7 13 0 38 178 05:45 PM 1 47 4 0 52 6 3 2 0 11 5 56 0 0 61 7 5 4 0 16 140 Total 6 214 25 0 245 34 8 7 0 49 9 242 5 0 256 57 28 44 0 129 679 Grand Total 25 365 42 0 432 63 23 23 0 109 15 416 14 0 445 102 52 78 0 232 1218 Apprch % 5.8 84.5 9.7 0 57.8 21.1 21.1 0 3.4 93.5 3.1 0 44 22.4 33.6 0 Total % 2.1 30 3.4 0 35.5 5.2 1.9 1.9 0 8.9 1.2 34.2 1.1 0 36.5 8.4 4.3 6.4 0 19 10 th Street Out In Total 557 432 989 25 365 42 0 Right Thru Left U-Turns 294 78 Right Thru Total Left Out 63 109 E Jefferson Street E Jefferson Street North 52 U-Turns Right Thru 232 23 In In 109 9/13/2016 04:00 PM 102 Left U-Turns 9/13/2016 05:45 PM 23 62 Cars + Trucks Out Total 0 218 0 Left Thru Right U-Turns 14 416 15 0 490 445 935 Out In Total 10th Street Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville(Jefferson and 11th) AM Peak Counted By: Site Code : Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + 11th Street Jefferson Street 11th Street Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 4 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 12 07:15 AM 2 5 0 0 7 1 2 0 0 3 2 1 3 0 6 2 1 1 1 5 21 07:30 AM 1 5 1 1 8 1 2 1 0 4 0 3 4 0 7 3 5 0 0 8 27 07:45 AM 1 4 0 1 6 4 5 1 0 10 0 3 0 0 3 8 1 1 0 10 29 Total 7 18 1 2 28 6 10 2 0 18 4 7 7 0 18 14 7 3 1 25 89 08:00 AM 6 3 2 0 11 1 4 3 0 8 0 5 6 3 14 3 4 3 3 13 46 08:15 AM 12 25 0 1 38 1 6 3 3 13 0 3 11 2 16 6 1 1 1 9 76 08:30 AM 12 11 1 1 25 0 7 2 0 9 0 6 3 3 12 5 2 0 0 7 53 08:45 AM 0 6 2 4 12 1 4 0 0 5 0 10 5 1 16 10 4 1 0 15 48 Total 30 45 5 6 86 3 21 8 3 35 0 24 25 9 58 24 11 5 4 44 223 Grand Total 37 63 6 8 114 9 31 10 3 53 4 31 32 9 76 38 18 8 5 69 312 Apprch % 32.5 55.3 5.3 7 17 58.5 18.9 5.7 5.3 40.8 42.1 11.8 55.1 26.1 11.6 7.2 Total % 11.9 20.2 1.9 2.6 36.5 2.9 9.9 3.2 1 17 1.3 9.9 10.3 2.9 24.4 12.2 5.8 2.6 1.6 22.1 11th Street Out In Total 48 114 162 37 63 6 8 Right Thru Left Peds 169 8 Right Thru Total Left Out 9 28 Jefferson Street Jefferson Street North 18 Peds Right Thru 69 31 In In 9/14/2016 07:00 AM 53 38 Left Peds 9/14/2016 08:45 AM 10 100 Cars + Out Total 5 81 3 Left Thru Right Peds 32 31 4 9 111 76 187 Out In Total 11th Street Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville(Jefferson and 11th) PM Peak Counted By: Site Code : Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + 11th Street Jefferson Street 11th Street Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 2 2 1 0 5 3 7 0 0 10 1 3 2 1 7 3 6 1 1 11 33 04:15 PM 2 7 2 1 12 3 5 0 0 8 2 2 1 1 6 3 4 3 0 10 36 04:30 PM 0 7 1 1 9 2 8 1 0 11 1 10 2 0 13 6 9 2 0 17 50 04:45 PM 1 7 2 1 11 3 8 1 0 12 0 8 2 1 11 8 7 4 1 20 54 Total 5 23 6 3 37 11 28 2 0 41 4 23 7 3 37 20 26 10 2 58 173 05:00 PM 3 10 1 1 15 3 6 3 0 12 3 9 6 2 20 11 8 5 1 25 72 05:15 PM 1 8 5 0 14 0 4 0 0 4 0 12 5 1 18 7 9 2 0 18 54 05:30 PM 2 8 0 0 10 1 6 3 0 10 1 5 6 0 12 3 13 0 0 16 48 05:45 PM 1 6 1 2 10 1 4 2 0 7 0 5 2 0 7 3 7 2 0 12 36 Total 7 32 7 3 49 5 20 8 0 33 4 31 19 3 57 24 37 9 1 71 210 Grand Total 12 55 13 6 86 16 48 10 0 74 8 54 26 6 94 44 63 19 3 129 383 Apprch % 14 64 15.1 7 21.6 64.9 13.5 0 8.5 57.4 27.7 6.4 34.1 48.8 14.7 2.3 Total % 3.1 14.4 3.4 1.6 22.5 4.2 12.5 2.6 0 19.3 2.1 14.1 6.8 1.6 24.5 11.5 16.4 5 0.8 33.7 11th Street Out In Total 89 86 175 12 55 13 6 Right Thru Left Peds 215 19 Right Thru Total Left Out 16 84 Jefferson Street Jefferson Street North 63 Peds Right Thru 129 48 In In 9/14/2016 04:00 PM 74 44 Left Peds 9/14/2016 05:45 PM 10 86 Cars + Out Total 3 158 0 Left Thru Right Peds 26 54 8 6 109 94 203 Out In Total 11th Street Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : charlottesville(little high and 11th) 14 hour count Site Code : Start Date : 5/10/2017 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks 11th Street Little High Street 11th Street Little High Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 06:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 06:30 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 06:45 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 Total 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 07:00 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 8 07:15 1 8 0 9 2 5 0 7 0 4 0 4 1 1 0 2 22 07:30 2 10 0 12 2 6 0 8 0 5 0 5 1 3 0 4 29 07:45 0 8 3 11 5 7 1 13 1 1 1 3 6 5 0 11 38 Total 3 30 3 36 9 19 1 29 2 11 1 14 8 10 0 18 97 08:00 0 11 3 14 1 8 3 12 0 5 1 6 16 3 5 24 56 08:15 2 27 0 29 4 10 3 17 0 7 1 8 28 5 5 38 92 08:30 0 24 3 27 2 4 2 8 2 6 0 8 9 5 4 18 61 08:45 1 8 0 9 4 14 3 21 1 5 1 7 5 2 1 8 45 Total 3 70 6 79 11 36 11 58 3 23 3 29 58 15 15 88 254 09:00 2 5 3 10 0 4 1 5 1 7 1 9 0 5 1 6 30 09:15 1 8 1 10 0 5 0 5 0 9 2 11 2 3 1 6 32 09:30 0 8 0 8 1 4 1 6 0 2 1 3 1 3 1 5 22 09:45 2 10 1 13 2 7 0 9 0 9 0 9 3 4 4 11 42 Total 5 31 5 41 3 20 2 25 1 27 4 32 6 15 7 28 126 10:00 1 6 0 7 1 5 2 8 0 4 1 5 1 3 2 6 26 10:15 0 6 1 7 1 4 0 5 1 7 2 10 0 2 3 5 27 10:30 2 8 0 10 2 3 0 5 0 9 1 10 1 2 1 4 29 10:45 1 4 1 6 2 8 0 10 1 7 1 9 0 4 0 4 29 Total 4 24 2 30 6 20 2 28 2 27 5 34 2 11 6 19 111 11:00 2 6 0 8 2 2 0 4 2 7 1 10 0 4 0 4 26 11:15 1 6 0 7 0 4 0 4 2 4 3 9 2 1 2 5 25 11:30 0 5 0 5 0 2 0 2 1 10 1 12 1 2 1 4 23 11:45 1 7 2 10 1 3 0 4 1 5 1 7 2 5 1 8 29 Total 4 24 2 30 3 11 0 14 6 26 6 38 5 12 4 21 103 12:00 1 6 2 9 4 6 0 10 1 8 1 10 2 12 4 18 47 12:15 3 4 1 8 1 6 0 7 0 17 3 20 3 5 2 10 45 12:30 1 11 1 13 2 8 0 10 0 12 0 12 1 5 1 7 42 12:45 3 5 0 8 0 3 2 5 1 10 1 12 2 6 3 11 36 Total 8 26 4 38 7 23 2 32 2 47 5 54 8 28 10 46 170 13:00 0 10 0 10 2 3 0 5 1 8 0 9 2 3 0 5 29 13:15 2 24 3 29 2 5 0 7 3 10 1 14 11 9 2 22 72 13:30 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 13:45 2 11 0 13 2 7 0 9 1 8 0 9 3 5 1 9 40 Total 4 46 3 53 6 17 0 23 5 27 1 33 16 18 3 37 146 14:00 2 7 3 12 2 3 1 6 1 5 0 6 0 4 0 4 28 14:15 1 6 0 7 0 2 1 3 1 10 0 11 4 7 1 12 33 14:30 2 7 2 11 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 8 2 4 1 7 27 14:45 3 6 0 9 3 1 0 4 0 8 1 9 0 3 1 4 26 Total 8 26 5 39 5 7 2 14 2 27 5 34 6 18 3 27 114 15:00 0 9 3 12 2 5 1 8 1 6 2 9 2 9 1 12 41 15:15 3 7 3 13 1 5 3 9 0 5 0 5 1 4 1 6 33 15:30 1 8 1 10 1 11 0 12 0 10 3 13 8 8 7 23 58 15:45 0 8 2 10 2 8 3 13 1 9 1 11 1 3 2 6 40 Total 4 32 9 45 6 29 7 42 2 30 6 38 12 24 11 47 172 16:00 2 7 3 12 1 6 0 7 0 10 2 12 1 5 1 7 38 16:15 2 4 3 9 1 5 1 7 0 6 2 8 2 4 5 11 35 16:30 2 2 1 5 1 6 1 8 1 5 2 8 1 8 1 10 31 16:45 1 12 1 14 2 6 0 8 1 16 1 18 0 5 2 7 47 Total 7 25 8 40 5 23 2 30 2 37 7 46 4 22 9 35 151 17:00 4 10 2 16 0 6 1 7 1 12 2 15 0 7 4 11 49 Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : charlottesville(little high and 11th) 14 hour count Site Code : Start Date : 5/10/2017 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks 11th Street Little High Street 11th Street Little High Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left App. Total Int. Total 17:15 4 7 2 13 6 20 2 28 1 15 4 20 2 8 2 12 73 17:30 4 8 4 16 3 7 0 10 0 11 2 13 1 22 2 25 64 17:45 1 10 4 15 1 4 1 6 0 11 0 11 1 9 0 10 42 Total 13 35 12 60 10 37 4 51 2 49 8 59 4 46 8 58 228 18:00 0 5 0 5 1 5 0 6 1 6 0 7 1 12 0 13 31 18:15 0 2 0 2 1 3 1 5 0 7 3 10 1 6 0 7 24 18:30 0 3 1 4 0 4 1 5 0 2 0 2 0 13 1 14 25 18:45 0 2 2 4 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 5 0 5 14 Total 0 12 3 15 3 13 2 18 2 16 4 22 2 36 1 39 94 19:00 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 8 0 6 0 6 0 7 1 8 24 19:15 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 8 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 13 19:30 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 10 1 11 19 19:45 1 2 0 3 2 6 0 8 0 2 2 4 0 2 1 3 18 Total 1 5 2 8 6 19 2 27 0 12 2 14 0 22 3 25 74 ***BREAK*** Grand Total 64 387 64 515 80 277 37 394 31 363 57 451 131 277 80 488 1848 Apprch % 12.4 75.1 12.4 20.3 70.3 9.4 6.9 80.5 12.6 26.8 56.8 16.4 Total % 3.5 20.9 3.5 27.9 4.3 15 2 21.3 1.7 19.6 3.1 24.4 7.1 15 4.3 26.4 Cars + 64 386 64 514 80 277 37 394 31 363 57 451 131 277 80 488 1847 % Cars + 100 99.7 100 99.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 Trucks 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % Trucks 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Driveways - AM Counted By: Dean Site Code : 00000000 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/14/2016 Equipment ID: 4233 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Unshifted East Jefferson St EXIT 10th Street EXIT East Jefferson St ENTER 10th Street ENTER Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total *** BREAK *** 07:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 4 0 8 10 Total 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 5 0 10 13 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 4 0 4 9 08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 8 0 9 18 08:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 8 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 6 Total 3 0 0 0 3 9 0 2 0 11 2 0 6 0 8 2 0 17 0 19 41 Grand Total 4 0 0 0 4 10 0 2 0 12 2 0 7 0 9 7 0 22 0 29 54 Apprch % 100 0 0 0 83.3 0 16.7 0 22.2 0 77.8 0 24.1 0 75.9 0 Total % 7.4 0 0 0 7.4 18.5 0 3.7 0 22.2 3.7 0 13 0 16.7 13 0 40.7 0 53.7 East Jefferson St EXIT Out In Total 32 4 36 4 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Peds 40 22 Right Thru Total Left Out 10 10th Street ENTER 10th Street EXIT 2 North 0 Peds Right Thru 29 In 0 In 9/14/2016 07:00 AM 12 7 Left 9/14/2016 08:45 AM 2 11 Unshifted Out Total 0 Peds 14 0 Left Thru Right Peds 7 0 2 0 9 9 18 Out In Total East Jefferson St ENTER Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Driveways - PM Counted By: Dean Site Code : 00000000 Weather: Clear Start Date : 9/13/2016 Equipment ID: 4233 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Unshifted East Jefferson St EXIT 10th Street EXIT East Jefferson ENTER 10th Street ENTER Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 13 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 9 04:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 7 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 8 12 Total 3 0 0 0 3 17 0 6 0 23 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 10 0 14 41 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 11 0 1 0 12 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 0 6 20 05:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 8 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 0 0 2 0 2 19 0 2 0 21 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 9 0 12 36 Grand Total 3 0 2 0 5 36 0 8 0 44 1 0 1 0 2 7 0 19 0 26 77 Apprch % 60 0 40 0 81.8 0 18.2 0 50 0 50 0 26.9 0 73.1 0 Total % 3.9 0 2.6 0 6.5 46.8 0 10.4 0 57.1 1.3 0 1.3 0 2.6 9.1 0 24.7 0 33.8 East Jefferson St EXIT Out In Total 55 5 60 3 0 2 0 Right Thru Left Peds 30 19 Right Thru Total Left Out 36 10th Street ENTER 10th Street EXIT 3 North 0 Peds Right Thru 26 In 0 In 9/13/2016 04:00 PM 44 7 Left 9/13/2016 05:45 PM 8 4 Unshifted Out Total 0 Peds 47 0 Left Thru Right Peds 1 0 1 0 15 2 17 Out In Total East Jefferson ENTER Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville(Jefferson and Driveway#3) PM Peak Counted By: Site Code : Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + Driveway #3 Jefferson Street Jefferson Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 04:15 PM 4 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 8 04:30 PM 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7 04:45 PM 1 0 4 0 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 8 0 8 0 16 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 25 05:00 PM 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 05:15 PM 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 05:45 PM 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Total 5 0 5 0 10 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 17 Grand Total 13 0 13 0 26 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 42 Apprch % 50 0 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Total % 31 0 31 0 61.9 19 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 Driveway #3 Out In Total 16 26 42 13 0 13 0 Right Thru Left Peds 21 8 Right Thru Total Left Out 8 13 Jefferson Street Jefferson Street North 0 Peds Right Thru 8 In 0 In 9/14/2016 04:00 PM 0 Left 9/14/2016 05:45 PM 8 0 13 Cars + Out Total 0 Peds 21 0 Left Thru Right Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville(Water and City Walk) AM Peak Counted By: Site Code : Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Bikes City Walk Way Water Street Water Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 5 0 6 4 15 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 7 32 07:15 AM 9 0 4 4 17 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 9 37 07:30 AM 11 0 5 1 17 5 9 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 38 07:45 AM 8 0 6 1 15 1 17 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 7 41 Total 33 0 21 10 64 6 47 0 2 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 8 0 29 148 08:00 AM 19 0 10 1 30 2 19 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 6 57 08:15 AM 11 0 9 4 24 1 16 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 48 08:30 AM 12 0 4 2 18 3 19 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 10 50 08:45 AM 17 0 6 7 30 1 26 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 71 Total 59 0 29 14 102 7 80 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 3 0 37 226 Grand Total 92 0 50 24 166 13 127 0 2 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 11 0 66 374 Apprch % 55.4 0 30.1 14.5 9.2 89.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 83.3 16.7 0 Total % 24.6 0 13.4 6.4 44.4 3.5 34 0 0.5 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.7 2.9 0 17.6 Cars + 92 0 50 16 158 13 127 0 2 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 11 0 65 365 % Cars + 100 0 100 66.7 95.2 100 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.2 100 0 98.5 97.6 Bikes 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 % Bikes 0 0 0 33.3 4.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 1.5 2.4 City Walk Way Out In Total 24 158 182 0 8 8 24 166 190 92 0 50 16 0 0 0 8 92 0 50 24 Right Thru Left Peds 284 285 1 11 11 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 13 13 105 104 0 1 North 54 55 1 Water Street Water Street Peds Right Thru 127 127 65 66 1 9/14/2016 07:00 AM In 0 In 9/14/2016 08:45 AM 142 142 0 0 0 Left Peds 0 Cars + 0 0 0 219 219 0 Bikes Out Total 0 0 0 247 246 1 2 0 2 Left Thru Right Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Out In Total Ramey Kemp & Associates 4343 Cox Road Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 File Name : Charlottesville(Water and City Walk) PM Peak Counted By: Site Code : Burns Service, Inc. Start Date : 9/14/2016 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Bikes City Walk Way Water Street Water Street Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 3 0 3 2 8 10 7 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 15 40 04:15 PM 0 0 1 2 3 9 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 17 34 04:30 PM 0 0 2 7 9 3 7 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5 0 19 38 04:45 PM 3 0 3 4 10 4 9 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 10 2 34 57 Total 6 0 9 15 30 26 28 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 22 2 85 169 05:00 PM 5 0 1 1 7 7 8 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 9 0 36 58 05:15 PM 6 1 2 8 17 9 12 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 11 0 31 69 05:30 PM 4 0 5 6 15 11 13 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 8 4 34 73 05:45 PM 8 0 6 1 15 6 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 4 0 29 54 Total 23 1 14 16 54 33 37 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 32 4 130 254 Grand Total 29 1 23 31 84 59 65 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 54 6 215 423 Apprch % 34.5 1.2 27.4 36.9 47.6 52.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72.1 25.1 2.8 Total % 6.9 0.2 5.4 7.3 19.9 13.9 15.4 0 0 29.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 36.6 12.8 1.4 50.8 Cars + 29 1 23 17 70 59 65 0 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 54 4 213 407 % Cars + 100 100 100 54.8 83.3 100 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 66.7 99.1 96.2 Bikes 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 16 % Bikes 0 0 0 45.2 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33.3 0.9 3.8 City Walk Way Out In Total 113 70 183 0 14 14 113 84 197 29 1 23 17 0 0 0 14 29 1 23 31 Right Thru Left Peds 307 309 2 54 54 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 59 59 178 178 0 0 North 155 0 155 Water Street Water Street Peds Right Thru 213 215 2 65 65 9/14/2016 04:00 PM In 0 In 9/14/2016 05:45 PM 124 124 0 0 0 Left Peds 0 Cars + 0 0 0 94 94 0 Bikes Out Total 4 2 6 302 302 0 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Out In Total Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : Shenandoah Joe Ped Count Site Code : Start Date : 4/26/2017 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks Into Shenandoah Joe Out of Shenandoah Joe Into Shenandoah Joe Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 4 4 4 0 4 2 0 2 10 07:15 0 6 6 6 4 10 1 0 1 17 07:30 0 7 7 5 1 6 1 0 1 14 07:45 0 5 5 9 0 9 1 0 1 15 Total 0 22 22 24 5 29 5 0 5 56 08:00 0 8 8 3 0 3 0 0 0 11 08:15 0 10 10 8 2 10 3 0 3 23 08:30 0 14 14 10 1 11 3 1 4 29 08:45 0 5 5 8 4 12 2 0 2 19 Total 0 37 37 29 7 36 8 1 9 82 Grand Total 0 59 59 53 12 65 13 1 14 138 Apprch % 0 100 81.5 18.5 92.9 7.1 Total % 0 42.8 42.8 38.4 8.7 47.1 9.4 0.7 10.1 Cars + 0 59 59 53 12 65 13 1 14 138 % Cars + 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : Shenandoah Joe Ped Count Door #2 Site Code : Start Date : 4/26/2017 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + - Trucks Into Shenandoah Joe Out of Shenandoah Joe Into Shenandoah Joe Southbound Westbound Northbound Start Time Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Right Thru App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 2 2 0 2 2 4 0 4 8 07:15 0 3 3 6 4 10 3 0 3 16 07:30 0 3 3 4 0 4 4 0 4 11 07:45 0 2 2 5 3 8 5 0 5 15 Total 0 10 10 15 9 24 16 0 16 50 08:00 0 2 2 2 6 8 6 0 6 16 08:15 0 4 4 3 1 4 2 0 2 10 08:30 0 4 4 7 4 11 6 0 6 21 08:45 0 1 1 7 4 11 5 0 5 17 Total 0 11 11 19 15 34 19 0 19 64 Grand Total 0 21 21 34 24 58 35 0 35 114 Apprch % 0 100 58.6 41.4 100 0 Total % 0 18.4 18.4 29.8 21.1 50.9 30.7 0 30.7 Cars + 0 21 21 34 24 58 35 0 35 114 % Cars + 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 0 100 100 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burns Service Inc. 1202 Langdon Terrace Drive Raleigh, NC, 27615 File Name : Milli Coffee Roasters Ped Count Site Code : Start Date : 4/26/2017 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Cars + Into Milli Coffee Into Milli Coffee Out of Milli Coffee Southbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Right Thru App. Total Thru Left App. Total Right Left App. Total Int. Total 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15 0 0 0 0 7 7 3 0 3 10 07:30 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 0 3 7 07:45 1 0 1 0 7 7 3 0 3 11 Total 1 0 1 0 18 18 9 0 9 28 08:00 1 0 1 0 7 7 1 0 1 9 08:15 3 0 3 0 4 4 6 0 6 13 08:30 2 0 2 0 10 10 4 0 4 16 08:45 0 0 0 0 4 4 11 0 11 15 Total 6 0 6 0 25 25 22 0 22 53 Grand Total 7 0 7 0 43 43 31 0 31 81 Apprch % 100 0 0 100 100 0 Total % 8.6 0 8.6 0 53.1 53.1 38.3 0 38.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Multi‐Way Stop Warrants Project Name East Jefferson Street Apartments Project/File # 16147 Scenario Existing 2017 Intersection Information Major Street (E/W Road) Little High Street Minor Street (N/S Road) 11th Street Analyzed with 1 approach lane Analyzed with 1 Approach Lane Total Approach Volume 966 vehicles Total Approach Volume 884 vehicles Total Ped/Bike Volume 0 crossings Total Ped/Bike Volume 0 crossings Right turn reduction of 0 percent applied Right turn reduction of 0 percent applied No high speed or isolated community reduction applied to the Multi‐Way Stop Warrant thresholds. Condition A ‐ Traffic Signal Warrant Condition Satisfied? Not Satisfied Criteria* Traffic Signal Warranted & Justified * Multi‐way stop control may be used as an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. Condition B ‐ Crash Experience Condition Satisfied? Not satisfied Required values reached for less than 4 correctable crashes Criteria ‐ Crash Experience 5 or more correctable crashes in 12‐month period Condition C ‐ Intersection Volume & Delay Condition Satisfied? Not Satisfied Required values reached for 0 hours & sec. average delay/veh Criteria ‐ Major Street (veh/hr) 300 for any 8 hours of an average day Criteria ‐ Minor Street (total vol‐veh, ped, & bikes/hr) 200 for the same 8 hours of an average day Criteria ‐ Delay (average sec/veh) 30 during the highest hour Condition D ‐ Combination Volume, Crash Experience, & Delay Condition Satisfied? Not Satisfied Required values reached for 0 hours, less than 4 crashes, & sec. average delay/veh Criteria ‐ Major Street (veh/hr) 240 for any 8 hours of an average day Criteria ‐ Minor Street (total vol‐veh, ped, & bikes/hr) 160 for the same 8 hours of an average day Criteria ‐ Crash Experience 4 or more correctable crashes in 12‐month period Criteria ‐ Delay (average sec/veh) 24 during the highest hour VIClNITTMAP I 1011 E. JEFFERSON STREET APARTMENTS SCALE: 1• • iDGO' ' SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONCEPTUAL PLAN -t GENERAL NOTES: O'lflllOl1 ~li!ClltA.~\IWTttl.l4~ PO BOK 5526 CHAAlDITESVIUE,VA.27905 TAX MAP NUMBER ADJOINING OWNER INFORMATION CITY OF CHARLOTIESVILLE, VIRGINIA ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION ll,l!QtlnJ;I ~~-H~irg~,11-., COWNS ENGINU!llf!G 200 GARRETT STR££T K sum: S:iVli'6001 WRIGHT BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC 315 lOTH STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN "'' MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ! CHARlOITESVILLE, VA 22~2 CMARLOTTESVJLLE. VA.22902 ID.£PHON'E:(4)4)1171-7202 fl:UPHONE: {4~) ;>gJ-l71!1 '\llJJilros--! DE MAIO, THOMAS J 934E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING "DlltlW PEOPLE PLACES INCORPORATED 1002 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING "', n'I02 ~HUJ ~ > CHANCEY, RIEBELING, SMILEY & WtLEY, LLC 1008 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION Ot PROJECT: 1011[ J[FTERSQNSTAEET,CHARLOITESVILLE,VA22Q02 S.IUU.\k» 1014EJS, LLC 1014 E JEF~ERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 22902 DN OFFICE BUILDING 'RJt,1,1.. •0lliVo... 111Ul.illCluiOt.(l;"!llI M'IMWlllt9 ,_, L 4!41 JrQla" ">4rlTI 5AllJf"8JOO MOE,LLC AJGAONKAR, ASHOK D 1020 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOITESVILLE, VA 12902 1100 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTIESVILLE, VA 22902 DN B-1 OFFICE BUILDING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ElUSTIHC US£: l.lrtK'J'.1,(lll't;Eil!Jlt~ ~lrw,llllJUtlr MAJo:IMUM Of" 126 MULllrAMILY OWEUING U"llfS (1 HID 2 BEDROOM UNIT'S) ~t fll.!XO);J LAMAR, PHILIPS S TR-EJEFF LDTR 1101 E JEFFERSON STREET, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 B-1 OFFICE BUILDING I U) """".,,,. ,.._, !i-1101 - MANEGOLD PROPERTY, LLC 319 llTH ST. NE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 B-1 OFFICE BUILDING I 1>-1 ~ A SP[CUL US[ Pmt.trr rs BEING 'SOUGHT FOR ...... lt-ICllu.s.E IN DENSITY (65 DUA. - 87 DUA) NOTE: 1-21 Olio\ CURRENTLY Al.LOWED FOR ~ENTW. BY-RIGlfT ON mt: PROPERTY '>lllllmro 1\RQIV\ rflHfl NDrn S.&~.l'IWAtJ :nlf. 1001 UE O lAIU._OTTFS\'JLlf 'I/A, 219Q2- l flHffT; B Ul!.Ptl~G 14~ACRES~87 DUA• W.X OF 126UNITS TOBEAUCNIUlWllHlHISSPCCIN..USEPEJll.llT I ·- IJ.U'.IMULI OF 180 BEDftOOUS (50S OF THE DWEWNG ~ITS SIW_L BE 2 BEOROOU UNITS) I TMP 54-125 STORUWA.TER W.t-w;EMENT EXrSTIHC SITE IS PRIMARILY IW'ERVIOUS PEJMOUS PAVERS ARE PROPOSED FOfl srORUWATER QUM..ITY RAIN GARDENS, UNOERGROIJN{J OCTENllON, YARD SWALES, AND tJ.I() OCTENTION FOR l)l[ SITE TO PRCMDE ... U> WAT£R OUILJTY ON TttE SITE In) TO REDUCE THE POST DEVELOPMENT RUHOFF RATES VOWWES.. I.ND \ I 1>-1 '.£1.0CITIES FRQl.f. lHE SITE I I_ > w c:: SlOE:NOtlEREOU1RED(AD.V.CENTTOEXISTINGB-1PROPERT'fj ?iPE ,; RrAR: NOHE REQUIRED (ADJACENT TO EXISTING B-1 PROPERTY) \ 45 F'EET (BUILDINC Sl-W.L t.a=:ET THE IAAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREME""5 IN -'C'CORONICE \\'lltt THE EXISTING CITY COO£) \I I FUu. com:~11U°"-WM.K TMP 54-126 1 1\ WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2% 1)0,000 +/-Sf" SLOPE SHALL EXTEND PROJECT TO BE OC\IELOPEO IN (1) PHASE: N"f'ORIJABI...[ OWEWNG UNITS StW..L BE PROVlllEO AS REOUIR[[l BY ZONING OR[)jN.A.t.'C( SECTION H-1i, o11111 nm- -...n. ,..u~ rmq 111C 11~ ~ 01t ~ .. ACROSS THE \i iiU,EVtp!Wn:WAV1[ ~jrRll t r.,;t NO PROPOSED , CONNECTION ® 5~"7JlQ'"E J I lH[RC ARE NO FtOOOPU.IN LIMITS WITHIN TH£ S.U8JECT PROPERl'Y Pffi F'E:W. IW'l5100JC02B90, PN FEBRUARY 4, 2Qll5 lHE OEl/ELOPMENT [lr TIIS PROPERTl' DOES NOT IMPACT A STREAM eurrrn, WATERCOURSE:. OR I FROM THE ALLEY TO THE EXISTING OFFSITE ALLEY 1.:hw•, ·- I N 35:b0'03"E BOIMIW!Y OF l i t SITE W.+.s PRCMtnl /J1 COMllONWE>lTH Will~. ND.{Ll8[11 2015 10.0& K;&:re lULL UC".sDfo'Ul., ~ ~NI O R.'MR CRITlCAl.SlDPES: NOH[ TIV.T MEET THE COHOIOOHS or lHE CfN ORDINANCE SECTION J4- I I 20 AA£AS PU8UC US£: CUffRENQY, THERE IS NO L»ID ON THIS PROPERlY TW.T IS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC USE WATER OCMANDS/FIRE FLOW: CUJIAENQY THERE IS I\ ORE H'l1>AANT AT THE IHlERS£CllON Of" E JEFFERSON SffiEET ANO llTH STREET ~ 111 11P.£1f1VW/t i!il Oil M[111'SttTI~ U l .r;m"""" '(llll(fit olf:4lt 111111 fttl[[I !fi't ID'ot 11f1r"ICftJITY Tll[lllJllCtlll lll lli l. 'illQ~AJllllllllll.fl!!l•UlrMmil!IWE"'!Om:::lllW - 11-tGRESS N«J E<:RESS: ACCESS TO BijLDH; PAAKltfG ~E SfW..L EH:: rAOM THE PROPOSID ALLEY WfTH N:t:ESS FROM IOTH I 1- ® 1 ALL LICHTltfG SIW..l B£ FULL OBLIQUE Sl'IEtDING OUTOOOR LIGfflNG, WHICH SIW..L NOT EUIT LIGHT ABOVE Ill£ LINE or SIGHT TO TllE LIGHT SOURCES WHEN Vlf:WEO FROM THE PROTECTEO PROP£RTIES THE SHla.D SHALL BLOCK OIRECT 11..LUMIN.l.TIOtl or PROTECTUl PROPERTIES A>IO Tll£ Fl)('TUftE SHllLL COMPl..£Til..Y COtlCEAL N'IO R£C(<;S TllE lKiHT SOUR!:£ FRCM ALL V1£'Wlh'G POSITIONS EXCEPT THO<;.£ T • J l!J ~ er. POSITIONS PEF™ITTED TO RECEIVE ILLUM.INATIOH !aCTllP-~C'fl#i(l l~WE ~CD!l[_Tlfl ~ lm'Dii~ M.fui,.l'fl:;;~t ~~r tlU'O~ t SPILLCNER UCITT FROM LUMINARIES ONTO PUBLIC RO.lDS NII! IWIO """"-~ P'llO't1m' Vw.1 ~tFI l:..:;U:tl fill} RIQ'l- ~fl !llTLIPll»l"li Mil! Drtm~ 9lil(U ~ 'PJIPU IUJtt'li 11111 ru:u;i Noll&. tmt li1T ~ tl:t PROPOSED 3' CALIPER STREET TREES T~ BE ~.AUt-E_OI NM;:OJliOAt.\:i:E. WffttCl t 111!-0U tkt,!.!l. tl U~ z en ~ r- (") C') w a.. w ni: D4111.w:t lot~ CJIU)I PW""UM ..... nr ~ ...~ I W "'°' ..' en N U) I aruM '«IZJlill;ltl• ~M mn Mil~ '' I t:~ 'WIUlffl ....;ii l'MUll ~in ·~~11'1 """'"'"'""""' ., I b ·. 0: ""' (") => 1n .li>NlltMr.tJ'r talll'll ct • i 11m~ , 1 P"G; m1 ~r .. tP• '"~ PilZI ~ I' I kl w "'f - _J [~I 12GAPARTMENT$•6J~LEPARKINc;f!.*CKS ! N <( ~ TOTAL PARKIHO SPACES REOUIREO; 126 SPACES ... llJ BICYCLE RAONFllCT, AHO \A'ON OISCOYERY OF' N« llTn.JTY NOT SHOWN ON THE PL.ANS z uI _J U) <( :::::> 1 > z h: ......, ~Mip/Cfl Cl-"'it ~ ~ llil lllti 1$11Ii'tll~f DJL.N .f'llQ((;'tl """1'il111~ ~4T SJ' n£ 1i11Y ~tll Ski.LL 11E l!O'llP.llli ~1 11~ ~CTClll'lo DP'QGL £KiTfln"ll'1I _J 1- \ w ML m::HIJIC .a.!Ct ~"'1 Wi.IJ~llQ ~l K U111tSB1111"!" ~lfH 11-1 ~ \ COMMERCIAl w w CJ) u +---'"L~.-" . 0""'~" l!J z 1 A TEt.IPOIWn' STRUT ClDSURE PERI.Ill IS REQU~Dl FOR a.ostlRE or 510EWALllBYlttECfNTR.AITICE!iGINEER /RESIDENTIAL·· ~ ~ 0 ~ SITE N-10 B~ING CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET 2006 IBC SECTION J4-0Q rOR ACCESSIBILITY ANO VA usec: 10J J rOR Ow-IGE OF FLEX SPACE 0_J u z OCCUPN-ICY / a:: <( <( !:::; LEGEND BUMP-OUT AND I a.. ~ ~ "-- EXISTING CUL \lf"RT CULVfRT PfDE5Til W~ CillOSSillUli v.rtll o\111\A~ w9 ::<'. w <( w 1- c.. w w ~ DROP /NlET d! STRUCTURE NO. f- 5CJ) w lll CURB CURB d! GUT7f:R Ul er. :::::> PROPOSED ASPHALT i-:- 1- _J z w U) <( , • •• tt PROPOSEO CONCRErF w ...... PROPOSED VE"GETA TIVE COVER a:: z u w PROPOSED BIOFIL TER VEGETATION f- (/) 0 c.. EC-JA DITCH U) lll ...J ~ er. 111111 Ill · DEPTH Of" EC-JA DfrCH w w EC-2 DffCH a:: u. DEPTH OF EC-2 DITCH ...J a:: <( u. EARTH DlfCH (.9 w ...., DRIVEWAY CUU.£RT 0 0 0 N w * BENCH MARK -V-- Cl£ARING UM/rs \iQOT STANDARD STOP SIGN EXISTING CON rouR PROPOSED BUMP-OUT AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING WITH ai:~~~~E!~ / u 1:;0 T"-1 T"-1 ~,...-I lu ------<:i§i!>-- PROPOSED CONTOUR 24055 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ADA ACCESS PEDEStRIAN CROSSING WITH ~ ~ ~ TBC DENOTE:S TOP/BACK OF CURB / ADA ACCESS JOlllO T/9 OCNOTE:S TOP OF BOX 122074 SJGNATIJRE PANEL