Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, March 12, 2019 at 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 – February 12, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – January 22, 2019 – Work Session 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. ZM18-00004 - (Lyman Street) (Lyman Street Residences) –BKKW LLC (landowner) by its member Bruce Wardell, has submitted a rezoning petition for property identified on City Tax Map 58 as Parcels 289.2 and 358E (“Subject Property”). The rezoning petition proposes a change in zoning classification of the Subject Property, from the R-1 (low-density residential) on Parcel 289.2 to R-2 (two-family residential), and from Belmont Cottages Planned Unit Development on Parcel 358E to R-2 Residential. The Subject Property has approximately 145 feet of frontage on Lyman Street, and the total combined acreage of the Subject Property is approximately 0.2 acre (approximately 8,712 SF). Within the Belmont Cottages PUD, Parcel 358E was to be used for open space. Current zoning of Parcel 289.2 would allow that parcel to be used for one (1) single-family dwelling. The proposed rezoning would also allow one (1) single-family dwelling to be constructed on each parcel, or would allow additional unit(s) to be developed with a special use permit for infill development (see related application SP18-00011). The Land Use Plan within the City’s Comprehensive Plan projects that the Subject Property would be developed for Business and Technology uses. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that residential density greater than 15 units per acre would be appropriate in this location. 2. SP18-00011 – (Lyman Street) (Lyman Street Residences) –BKKW LLC (landowner) by its member Bruce Wardell has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use permit (SUP) proposing a specific Infill Development to be constructed on property identified on City Tax Map 58 as Parcels 289.2 and 358E (“Subject Property”), having, together, an acreage of approximately 0.2 acre (approx. 8.712 SF) and approximately 145 feet of frontage on Lyman Street. (See related rezoning application ZM18-00004) The Infill Development SUP proposes construction of three (3) single-family dwelling units on the Subject Property (an effective density of 15.2-DUA), with building setbacks and lot area less than would be permitted by right under the R-2 zoning district classification without an SUP. The Land Use Plan within the City’s Comprehensive Plan projects that the Subject Property would be developed for Business and Technology uses. The Comprehensive Plan also indicates that residential density greater than 15 units per acre would be appropriate in this location. Information pertaining to these requests may be viewed five days prior to the Public Hearing 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 Rezoning and SUP petition may contact Brian Haluska by email (haluska@charlottesville.org) or by telephone (434-970-3186). 3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Funding—1st Year Action Plan, FY 19­ 20: The Planning Commission and City Council are considering projects to be undertaken in the 1st Year Action Plan of the multi-year Consolidated Plan utilizing CDBG & HOME funds for the City of Charlottesville. In Fiscal Year 19-20 it is expected that the City of Charlottesville will receive about $408,417 in Community Development Block Grant funds and about $76,000 in HOME funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development HUD. CDBG funds will be used in the City to address neighborhood improvements in Belmont and/or Ridge Street, economic development activities and public service projects that benefit low and moderate income citizens. HOME funds will be used to support the housing needs of low and moderate-income citizens through homeowner rehabilitation. Report prepared by Tierra Howard, Grants Coordinator. Presented by Missy Creasy, Assistant Director IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded 1. Long Range Transportation Plan - Presentation V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday, April 9, 2019 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, April 9, 2019 – 5:30 PM Regular PUD, Critical Slope, Subdivision –Flint Meeting Hill SUP - Belleview Pump Station Critical Slope – 915 6th Street SE Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements SUP –MACAA (1021 Park Street), 167 Chancellor, 1617 Emmet Rezoning and Infill SUP – Lyman Street Subdivision – David Terrace SUP/Critical Slope – 0 Carlton Work Session – Standards and Design Manual 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 2/1/2019 TO 2/28/2019 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments 4. Subdivision a. BLA 1513 Chesapeake Street (TMP 55A-99.4 and 55A-88) – February 26, 2019 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET February 12, 2019 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell, and Mr. Bill Palmer Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Brian Haluska, Jeff Werner, Lisa Robertson, Kari Spitler, Carrie Rainey, and Dan Frisbee Commissioner Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5pm. He clarified the update request to the minutes from Mr. Emory and the process for addressing this evening was outlined. Clarification was provided on the critical slopes application for South 1st Street. Commissioner Lahendro asked about tree removal on the site. It was noted that the current information does not show the accurate disturbance area but that conditions can be crafted to address trees outlined for preservation. Ms. Robertson noted that any conditions need to be specific enough to identify what concern is to be addressed. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Beginning: 5:30 pm Location: City Hall, 2nd Floor, NDS Conference Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Taneia Dowell, Gary Heaton, Rory Stolzenberg, Hosea Mitchell, and Mr. Bill Palmer A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Lahendro: Attended a Tree Commission meeting last Tuesday. They have two vacancies on the Commission and are looking for members to represent low income neighborhoods. The Planting Committee is looking to choose a neighborhood next fall for their yearly campaign to plant trees. The Code Development Committee noted that the Fontaine Streetscape public process has begun and he will be representing the Tree Commission on the Streetscape Committee. The Data Committee reviewed 12 different measures for keeping track of tree planting, removals, and replacements throughout the City. A 3rd canopy study will begin in the fall, which is part of 3 studies done within a 15 year period. The Tree Commission will have a great understanding of the trees we’ve lost, how many are needed, and the reasons why they are being lost. On another note, several recent incidents have occurred where Utilities employees and developers haven’t provided the required tree protection, which has resulted in the loss of trees. Staff from NDS, Utilities, and Parks and Recreation are trying to find ways to be sure those tree protections are enforced. Lastly, Arbor Day is on April 26 and they are currently deciding where to have the celebration and which tree to celebrate. 2 Commissioner Dowell: No report. Commissioner Heaton: Attended the CTAC community engagement meeting on January 16 where participants were able to choose the 4 projects that they thought were most pressing. There was a great turnout and they had several tough conversations. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Attended the MPO Tech meeting and reviewed the new funding formula from VTRANS, as they are in the early stages of putting the process together for the next Smart Scale round. The Long Range Transportation Plan is near its conclusion and they are narrowing down the possible transportation projects. He also attended a meeting of the PLACE Advisory Committee where they discussed the length of municipal trucks and buses as it pertained to street safety in terms of safety while driving and safety for the pedestrian and bicycle environment. The Deputy Chief of the Fire Department attended as well. The new rezoning in Minneapolis to legalize duplexes and triplexes in all zones was also discussed among members. Commissioner Mitchell: Notes that he recently participated in the Fontaine Streetscape Project, which gave the consultants an opportunity to discuss the vision for the project. It also offered the neighbors a chance to take a survey about what they want to see in the Streetscape. The outcome of the survey will be available on February 28. He also attended a meeting with Parks and Recreation and notes that the organization is one of the most active in the state. The new skate park manager is Matt Moffitt, who used to be a professional skateboarder and has managed skate parks throughout the union. The park should be a large economic driver in Charlottesville and the Grand Opening is now scheduled for April 2019. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Bill Palmer: No report. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Lisa Green: Attended a TJPDC meeting on February 7 and they had a conversation about statewide broadband initiatives since the legislature is in session. They also had a lengthy discussion on the Regional Bicycle Pedestrian Plan, which takes into account the Charlottesville bike/ped plan and expands it regionally. The discussions were about how it expands out further into the County. The TJPDC part is focused on more rural biking, but the bulk of the plan is for the urban core ring of the County and the City. There was no vote on this issue, but the hope is that an education component can be added about the rules of the road and then eventually vote on it in March. The Regional Housing Commission is getting established with the new Executive Committee and the work on the housing study is underway. The Citizens Transportation Advisory Commission still has vacancies and are recruiting members of the public to help provide input on the transportation plan. City Council voted to hire a Long Range Planner to help complete the Comprehensive Plan, specifically for housing, land use, and the map. The Long Range Planner would be directly under the City Manager and would manage a contract with someone to help combine and complete the housing strategy, housing and land use chapters, and work on the zoning ordinance changes. There is currently no timeline at this time. Mr. Alex Ikefuna, Director of NDS: City Council graciously approved $600,000 for the zoning rewrite in addition to approving the hire of a Long Range Planner to help consolidate the Affordable Housing Strategy, the completion of the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning rewrite. Right now there are discussions about the job description for the Long Range Planner, as the Planner will have facilitate all three items. Chairman Green: Clarifies that this is not a new position. It was already funded in the budget as an Assistant City Manager and now there is a new job title. 3 Commissioner Heaton: Is there any additional information about the selection process? Mr. Ikefuna: Usually staff-related issues are internal and administrative. In terms of the interview, the Planning Commission will participate and a steering committee made up of the Planning Commission, PLACE, HAC, the public, the business and development community, staff etc. will be established to help oversee the preparation of all documents. Chairman Green: Notes that it can be frustrating when these documents do not talk to one another because it means we could potentially be heading in three different directions. It’s important to ensure that they align and this will be a good way to help us achieve that. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is the plan for the Long Range Planner to draft the RFP to issue and then hire the consultant or will it be drafted beforehand? Chairman Green: It should happen simultaneously. Mr. Ikefuna: A template is being put together so it can be accelerated once the person comes on board. We already have a draft for the Affordable Housing Strategy that was pending, which will need to be pulled back to extract the content as part of this consolidated RFP. Commissioner Heaton: Could you clarify that this will be our new process, but that we just do not have the consultant on-boarded yet, who will then tell us what the process is? Is there an estimation for when this person will come on board? Chairman Green: The process will be determining the best strategies to implement and then to come to the Planning Commission for guidance. Mr. Ikefuna: It’s difficult to say exactly when the person would come onboard, but the plan is to hire someone in the coming months. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Missy Creasy: NDS has a new planner on board named Joey Winter. We are currently in the process of recruiting to hire a Housing Coordinator, ADA Coordinator, and a Grants Coordinator, among others. There will be a work session on February 26 to discuss the subdivision for South 1st Street, as the application was not ready for the meeting tonight. Chairman Green: Notes that all applications have been submitted for the City Manager position and are currently being reviewed. Interviews should begin next week. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Sean Tubbs, Piedmont Environmental Council: Tonight the Commission is considering the critical slopes issue for South 1st Street and the PEC urges the Commission to ensure the project is handled with the upmost care. It is great that this will create the first new public housing units in decades here, as it is long overdue. However, the future residents of the site deserve the full scrutiny of this body on this matter. It is understandable that this needs to move forward to City Council in the coming weeks, but it’s important to not cut any corners that might 4 end up leading to an inferior product in the near future. The issue here is the small section of Pollocks Branch, which is an important link in a future north-south trail connection that will provide residents a way to move throughout the City without a car. The stream is in a strategic investment area and daylights at Elliot Avenue. It’s one of the areas that not many know about, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve attention. It is good to know the extent that the disturbance of these slopes impacts the waterway in the future. Having said that, during the pre-meeting there was discussion about the 4 conditions being considered as part of that, so many of these concerns have largely been addressed. It is also great that one of those conditions related to the planting of native species, as opposed to the species that were suggested before. Emily Dreyfus, Legal Aid Justice Center: Would like to thank staff for helping to move us forward to this point on the South 1st Street Development process. The resident outreach has been primarily door knocking, but there were 2 meetings yesterday and today that were well attended. Half of the residents of the currently occupied land have been reached, which is not where the first phase of the development will be located. One of the strongest messages that has been heard is to make it happen fast, as people want to see the redevelopment move forward and the tax credit application timing has been very challenging. People at South 1st Street and other public housing sites are living in severely difficult conditions dealing with mold, air quality problems, and poorly constructed buildings. F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Minutes – January 8, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 2. Minutes – September 11, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 3. Minutes – October 9, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 4. Minutes – November 13, 2018 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 5. Entrance Corridor Review – Ready Kids Chairman Green: Notes that a member of the public felt they were not represented well enough and would like to recommend a few edits to the November 13, 2018 minutes, which will be taken into consideration. Commissioner Mitchell moves to approve the consent agenda and take into account the revised comments by Bill Emory that were submitted on February 7. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 6-0. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 pm Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing No hearings were scheduled. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. Critical Slopes – South First Street Development – Phase 1 Chairman Green: Reminds the Commission that Pollocks Branch is a major part of the Strategic Investment Area project for it to be daylighted from Downtown to the County line and to have a linear park. 5 Staff Report, Carrie Rainey: The critical slope waiver application from the CRHA has been submitted in order to construct phase 1 of the redevelopment of the South 1st Street site. This phase would include 63 multifamily residential units, a community resource center, and a library. The original submission provided no critical slopes, defined by zoning ordinance 34-1120, would be disturbed by the development. However, subsequent to the posting of the agenda packet, the applicant has supplied a new exhibit showing impacts to critical slopes. Staff has not been provided with a sufficient level of detail for construction techniques and activities to confirm the boundaries of impact as shown in the updated exhibit. CRHA has asked the City to authorize it to disturb critical slope areas through the critical slopes waiver application to the extent necessary for the construction of the buildings as proposed in phase 1 of the redevelopment. Staff recommends the Planning Commission focus on whether the public benefits of the disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the public benefit of keeping a critical slope undisturbed, as well as the potential of negative erosion and storm water impacts to the environmentally sensitive area of Pollocks Branch. Staff proposes 4 conditions if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the waiver: 1. Require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to undisturbed critical slopes areas, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(a-c), including but not limited to: a. Super silt fence with wire reinforcing and six (6) feet stake spacing, b. Slope drains, c. Immediate installation of permanent stabilization measures along the southern and eastern limits of disturbance that encroach into critical slope areas within three (3) days of the establishment of temporary grading, and d.Other measures in excess of minimum requirements determined by City Engineering Staff to be necessary to protect Pollocks Branch from sedimentation, 2. An increase of required storm water detention of 10% beyond the minimum requirement in order to mitigate potential storm water impacts to Pollocks Branch, per Section 34­ 1120(b)(1)(b-c), to be detailed on the final storm water management plan and approved by the Engineering Department prior to final plan approval, 3. The critical slope area outside of approved encroachment boundaries shall be clearly marked in the field, and the approved storm water management plan and construction plan shall include a note requiring such limits of disturbed area to remain for the duration of construction and land disturbing activities, and 4. Final stabilization of the areas of critical slopes disturbed shall include replanting of native tree and shrub species to re-stabilize the critical slopes and potential wildlife habitat. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Stolzenberg: With regards to the recommendation of permanent stabilization measures, does that help during construction? Is it intended down the line or does it just improve the overall slope in general? Ms. Rainey: Permanent stabilization methods are usually more substantial than the temporary methods that would normally be applied. There would be less risk of impact to Pollocks Branch from potential failures of those measures in place. Chairman Green: On the applicant site plan, the drive has exemptions but the parking does not. Is this the case? Ms. Rainey: That is correct. Driveways have exemptions under the ordinance, but the areas of parking would not. Commissioner Lahendro: The existing conditions and demolition drawing plan shows trees to be removed. Are we sure that this is the extent of the trees to be removed? Not enough material has been submitted to fully understand the impacts of the project on the environment. Ms. Rainey: That is correct. As of right now, the Engineering department does not feel confident that they understand the potential construction activities through the site and the potential limits of the area based on 6 construction buildings next to steep slopes, which have additional requirements. They cannot say with certainty which trees would be impacted or critical root zones. Commissioner Lahendro: What material would be needed to come to this understanding? Does it warrant a conversation with the applicant about their construction methods or is that what the conditions are intended to address? Ms. Rainey: The conditions are an attempt to provide further protections for Pollocks Branch, the trees, and other plantings in the area from construction given the unknowns of the site. Notes that she would have to defer to Engineering on what specific information they may need in order to assess the impact. Commissioner Heaton: Has the applicant been made aware of the concerns that the 4 conditions address prior to tonight? Ms. Rainey: Not yet, as they were finalized not long ago. Chairman Green: It is understandable that this is being pushed through rapidly and there is a need for expedience. However, the letter from the City to the Engineer has many repeat comments. On the site plan, are all of the comments being addressed before we sign a site plan? Ms. Rainey: All comments would need to be resolved prior to the approval of those documents. Chairman Green: Based off of what we have to mitigate some of these impacts, do you think we would still be able to achieve what we are looking for in a Strategic Investment Area? This is an opportunity to have a public housing project and afford all of the amenities that the rest of the City has. It’s a great idea, but it’s important to be sure we are maintaining the integrity of the area. Ms. Rainey: Notes that she does not see any concerns outright and staff has been working with the applicant to provide trail easements for the Parks department. Those amenities would be aligned with the SIA plan. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Would an example of a permanent stabilization measure be a retaining wall? Ms. Rainey: The difference between things like sod versus temporary seeding would be an example of permanent versus temporary. A retaining wall would be a bit beyond that in terms of stabilization. Applicant – Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development: Notes that she is here on behalf of the Housing Authority and Scott Collins, the project engineer that has designed the site. This has been an expedited process and staff has worked very closely with them to move the project forward. The engineers have very thoroughly reviewed the site and geotechnical professionals are out there now doing soil borings. We are taking into account everything that has to do with building the structures adjacent to critical slopes. We haven’t had any new public housing since the 1980s and the conditions of many public housing units are very substandard. This has been an “all hands on deck” type of operation in order to get plans together to move forward with a March tax credit application. There are a lot of charitable donations coming in and the hope is to get significant financial support from the City as well. It is an exciting time because we have the momentum of everything coming together. The site was looked at with the critical slopes in mind and the hope was to avoid the critical slopes completely during the first look. It 7 would add time constraints and the area is environmentally sensitive so we wanted to avoid those. There is a trail system throughout the area, which is seen as a passive recreation area for the public and the community to enjoy. There will be a bridge that crosses the stream directly behind the property, which will be a major amenity for the City and the community, and it should be protected. We did not view the slope areas on the front of the site in this way because when the fields were put in in the 1980s, it was a more natural slope coming down from the road. When the fields were graded in, it created a manmade slope on the front of the property that was much further away from the stream and wasn’t the same type of environmentally sensitive area. Because of this, we don’t feel that the area is as critical to the conversation. However, we were very careful to keep the buildings off of the critical slopes. There has been a discrepancy between what we categorized as critical slopes because there was a difference between what the surveyors found on the site versus what the City GIS reports. We feel that our information is more precise, but we are willing to abide by the City defined critical slopes in order to process the waiver request and move forward. Scott Collins, Collins Engineering: The site is being developed with the critical slopes in mind. Many failures occur when structures are built above the critical slope in effort to stabilized things because everything starts to wash down, which makes it hard to impact the critical slopes and then build them up. This is not happening in this case. Based on our surveys, we are creating a flat bench. The basement level of the structure comes down and ties in to the top elevation of the critical slopes, which creates a flat bench between 7-20 feet from the back of the building. This wouldn’t extend the critical slopes and then building above them, but rather it would be cutting the development back at that elevation and then going up to create the parking lot. The curb and gutter and drainage system from the parking lot cuts off all off the drainage from the site at that point that would go to those critical slopes and to Pollocks Branch. Not only would you be benching in your development and not building above the critical slopes, but it would also cut off the drainage that goes to the critical slopes that creates erosion. These two aspects will help protect the existing critical slopes from the site down to Pollocks Branch. We are not developing into the critical slopes in order to get density or any other development aspect. The critical slopes were recognized during the beginning of the design and the site was developed around them to help preserve it, and there has been a lot of work done to help accommodate that. In addition, we’ve worked with the City engineers to determine that it would be best to build the front two buildings first and put the parking lot, drainage system, and curb and gutter in, all in attempt to cut off that drainage. Once the last building is put in, the drainage area would be confined to the space between the critical slopes and the parking lot. Everything that is protecting the critical slopes during construction would remain in place and it wouldn’t be built right on top of it. As far as the storm water management goes, storage can be increased underground but it wouldn’t help preserve the critical slopes. The drainage from that system is being picked up, taken to an underground detention system, and then it outfalls into the existing storm pipes that runs through the site, which outfalls directly to Pollocks Branch. We are improving the drainage ditch from that outfall to the stream, but that’s all at the bottom of the slopes. Increasing the underground detention has no affect and would increase costs to the Housing Authority. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Mitchell: Could you reiterate the alternative being proposed in place of the 2nd condition? 8 Mr. Collins: Conditions one, three, and four are being supported. We are phasing the project so that building number 3 is built last and the parking lot is put in first. Effectively, they stabilize the upland areas, which substantially decreases the amount of drainage that comes to the critical slopes during construction. Commissioner Mitchell: Will that method do the same thing to the identical degree as implementing recommendation #2, or does it just reduce it a bit? Mr. Collins: It will do 100x more than what condition #2 would do. Chairman Green: Are you using low impact development? You will likely have to get into the critical slopes a little more than just that corner to put the footings in and build the building. Mr. Collins: We increased the possible limits of disturbance for the critical slopes at those two corners because that’s the biggest impact. By benching it in, there is 6 ½ feet from the corners to what we consider the start of the critical slopes. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Asks if the condition regarding installing permanent stabilization methods within 3 days of the establishment of temporary grading would be an issue, given that there was an interest in sod stabilization. Mr. Collins: It can be done. After it is disturbed it would have to be stabilized. Then once construction is finished with the building, we will sod and stabilize the whole area before removing the measures like the silt fence. Chairman Green: Do you think this was put into place without the basic knowledge of building the two northern buildings as opposed to the southern building first? Mr. Collins: The engineers were on board with the concept during a meeting last Tuesday and it was submitted on Friday. They probably haven’t had a chance to review it. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there any advantage of using the permanent stabilization methods as the temporary stabilization in the beginning? Mr. Collins: It’s an unnecessary expense because diversion berms, wire reinforced silt fence, and trapping measures are all in place. Putting in sod and then taking it up 3 months later seems a little unnecessary when all these other measures are in place protecting it. Chairman Green: Would it make sense to add the sod for the two buildings closest to the road before building the other building to stabilize that area? Mr. Collins: If it were matted, it would essentially do the same thing because the berms and silt fence would still be there to protect it. The drainage from the parking lot would be cut off at that point and if it were graded and matted, it would be locked in. Chairman Green: Clarifies that the question is in regards to permanently stabilizing the areas after the first two buildings are built. 9 Mr. Collins: Certainly, that is the best way to do it. The money is being used for permanent features on the site and the site will be better if it is sodded. Commissioner Lahendro: The existing conditions demolition plan shows certain trees to be removed and other trees to be left. How firm is this? Mr. Collins: Very firm. The surveyor went out between December and January and located every tree within those slopes. Commissioner Lahendro: It’s important to be sure we aren’t benching into their root systems to the trunk of the tree. It would destroy the trees that are shown to be left because the construction methods would kill them. Mr. Collins: The trees that are shown to be removed are past the slope that cut off where the bench is going to start. Because it is in a forest condition, all of those trees and their branches are growing straight up, as opposed to going out with the root systems. We made sure that anything that was close to the slope area was shown as being impacted so the results would be accurate. Commissioner Lahendro: Would you be opposed to a condition that would require a non-movable screen to protect the root zones of the existing trees to be kept in place during construction? Mr. Collins: That would be fine. Chairman Green: Could we add a comment to memorialize the construction methods of the buildings for the first two buildings closest to the road as phasing of that construction for increased erosion impacts? The Commission agrees that this is acceptable. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he spent a day in the recreational area with both the Tree Commission and the Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards planting trees that are now going to be destroyed by this project. However, it also provided an opportunity to walk down into the Pollocks Branch area. It’s not very well respected now and there is a lot of trash from nearby houses, but there is a lot of wonderful potential for the area. It’s important for it to be protected and it will be a resource for this development and the other developments along Pollocks. Ms. Rainey: Notes that there was a comment from the public to clarify the impacts to other properties in the area and she was able to clarify that their personal property would not be directly impacted in terms of construction. Commissioner Lahendro: How does Mr. Frisbee feel about eliminating the 2nd condition? What was the intent by adding that condition? Dan Frisbee: Notes that he would have to defer to the engineering staff for the rationale behind adding the condition. There is not a direct correlation between the critical slope and the underground detention system because the runoff being sent to the underground system comes from other parts of the site. One reason to include it would be that making the system bigger provides additional detention of the storm water that is coming off of the site. There will be a lot more runoff generated by the site in the post-development condition. It is going from 6,600 square feet of impervious surface to 61,000 square feet. This device is meant to control the rate that the flow leaves the site and having a higher capacity can help keep back extra flow in larger storm events. 10 Commissioner Lahendro: By increasing this impervious area, there are already detention devices being put in to offset the increased impervious runoff. Mr. Frisbee: Correct, that is the existing system, which meets the state and local water quantity requirements. This would be making it bigger than that in order for it to handle more water than what is required. Commissioner Dowell: Do you feel like the alternative that the applicant presented is sufficient? They noted that condition B was an unnecessary expense and completing the first two buildings first would take care of the issues. Mr. Frisbee: Believes the intent of condition B is to get the area in the vicinity of the critical slopes permanently stabilized as quickly as possible to avoid sedimentation or erosion of the area. Perhaps crafting language to that intent might be more helpful. Commissioner Heaton: If the Planning Commission includes this requirement, shouldn’t it be more specific about the volume of the mitigation pool? Ms. Creasy: The Commission won’t have to decide that because the specific regulations already put in place will be required for it. Commissioner Heaton: It’s difficult to say without being more specific about how much in excess to require. Mr. Frisbee: It would be 10%. Is the question that you don’t know the volume of the system and don’t know how much additional capacity that is? Commissioner Heaton: Notes that he is trying to look at the cost because they are enormous. Mr. Frisbee: It’s about 10 feet in diameter. Mr. Collins: In terms of the sizing, it is already sized to contain a 100 year storm event, so making it 10% bigger than the 100 year storm event is irrelevant and unnecessary. Making it larger won’t achieve anything because it’s releasing the storm event at an energy balance formula, which equates to pre-existing conditions. Making it larger would create more detention but it’s unusable unless we had a 500 year storm. Chairman Green: Would you like to comment on the remark regarding the additional impervious surface? Mr. Collins: The underground detention system was designed because it collects all the runoff from the impervious surfaces and treats and releases it per the state regulations. It is already being achieved with the current design, which is why additional storage of the underground system is not necessary for this design. Chairman Green: Do you see any other issues with any of the other proposed conditions? Mr. Collins: No, all of the other conditions seem reasonable and many of them have been addressed with what was resubmitted with review. With a little bit of tweaking to what has been submitted, the rest of the conditions can be addressed. 11 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he would be okay with eliminating condition 1B and 2, and adding a condition about putting in non-movable protection for the root zones of the existing trees to be left. Chairman Green: Prior to disturbance at the site, installation of a fixed immovable barrier should be put in place to protect root zones of trees identified to be preserved at the drip line and remain throughout the completion of the construction. Additionally, memorialized construction methods presented by the applicant to phase construction of the buildings and add permanent erosion measures, where the first two buildings adjacent to 1st Street are to be constructed first in order to create a better stabilized site and create more efficient erosion measures. Commissioner Stolzenberg: It would be one thing to get rid of the permanent stabilization within 3 days during construction, but we wanted permanent stabilization methods because they are better in the long term. We could take the “permanent” part of the condition and fold it into condition 4 where final stabilization of critical slopes disturbed shall be permanent measures, including replanting of native trees and shrubs. Commissioner Heaton moves to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver, subject to conditions, based on a finding that the public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i), and due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonable restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii), My motion for approval includes the following conditions: 1. Require erosion and sediment control measures that exceed minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts to undisturbed critical slopes areas, per Section 34-1120(b)(1)(a-c), including but not limited to: a. Silt fence with wire reinforcement and six (6) feet stake spacing, and b. Other measures in excess of minimum requirements determined by City Engineering Staff to be necessary to protect Pollocks Branch from sedimentation, 2. The critical slope area outside of approved encroachment boundaries shall be clearly marked in the field, and the approved stormwater management plan and construction plan shall include a note requiring such limits of disturbed area to remain for the duration of construction and land disturbing activities, 3. Final stabilization of the areas of critical slopes disturbed shall be permanent measures to include replanting of native tree and shrub species to restabilize the critical slopes and potential wildlife habitat, 4. Memorialize construction methods presented by the applicant to phase construction of the buildings (the first two buildings adjacent to 1st Street to be constructed first) in order to create a better stabilized site and create a more efficient erosion measure, and 5. Prior to disturbance at the site, install a fixed, immoveable barrier to protect root zones of existing trees identified to be preserved at the drip line to remain throughout full completion of the construction. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 6-0. Commissioner Dowell: Notes that the project looks awesome and appreciates that the engineers are trying to make sure money isn’t wasted. It would be appreciated if the applicant is sensitive to the neighborhood because it is already under massive construction. Additionally, it’s important to keep the other residents and homeowners in the area in mind during construction. 12 Ms. Davies: Notes that they are having a public meeting with the neighborhood to review the plan on February 28 at the South First Community Center at 5:30 pm. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR REVIEW BOARD 2. Entrance Corridor – 140 Emmet Street (Gallery Hotel) Staff Report, Jeff Werner: Since being destroyed by fire in May 2017, the hotel and lot have been fenced off and unused. The parcel has a single, un-signalized entrance off Emmet Street and there is an existing City sidewalk along Emmet Street. The application requests a CoA to replace the destroyed building with a seven-story hotel to accommodate 79 rooms and suites, structured parking, and a small street level café space. Relative to the preliminary design that was presented during the SUP review, the final design is consistent in massing, scale, height, and configuration. It is only in materiality and color that it deviates from the earlier design. Within the building’s first three floors is a structured parking facility. The parking structure and the hotel’s three lower floors form a pedestal for the “L” shaped massing of the upper floors. Along Emmet Street, which is the west façade, the lower level features a street level café, entry to the parking garage, and a trellised patio above the café. The south façade features a ground level patio area and a trellised third floor balcony. The upper floors step back on the western façade and a full-height tower anchors the southwest corner of the building. Compared to the preliminary design, the proposed materiality and colors follow a more contemporary palette. The exterior floors of floors 1-2 have porcelain tiles with punched metal windows and metal storefront sections at street level. The street level café has porcelain tiles, a metal canopy, and black storefront panel. Above the canopy is a second floor patio area with metal trellised glass metal rails. Floors 3-6 feature black/blue glazed brick with punched metal windows framed by metal cladding. Floor 7 has metal panels with punched metal windows. The tower has porcelain tiles with full height fenestration in metal frames. Overall, the building is articulated by three physical elements: the tower, the hotel itself, and the one story projection for the café and patio above. The ERB must consider the EC Design Guidelines in determining the appropriateness of the proposed construction within an Entrance Corridor. Staff recommends that the building’s height, mass, and scale are appropriate and the contemporary interpretation of traditional architecture is an appropriate concept. The design provides variation and articulation. The proposed materials and colors are appropriate and the proposed building is appropriately located close to the property lines with concealed interior structured parking. Landscaping is proposed at the courtyard area and along the streetscape. The site layout accommodates the hotel’s function, including vehicular traffic and pedestrian access. The public sidewalk has been moved closer to the building so the street trees can be located between the sidewalk and Emmet Street, creating a more welcoming entrance. The building’s design, massing, scale, and landscaping elements will provide a positive contribution to this redeveloping segment of the EC. Relative to the proposal being compatible with the features and characteristics of other buildings and structures within this EC, recent building demolitions have left this segment of Emmet Street all but devoid of nearby structures. The proposed hotel’s massing, scale, and extended façade along Emmet Street have similarities to the large hotel that, until late 2018, stood at 105 Emmet Street. However, their differences will provide positive contributions to the future character of the corridor. Relevant sections of the guidelines to consider include: 13 1. Design for a Corridor Vision: The streetscape design will also be coordinated with the ongoing streetscape enhancements proposed for the corridor. 2. Preserve History: While the original building was lost in fire, this project will restore the site’s use as a hotel. Furthermore, through design and display, the new hotel will create a connection to the original and its historic past. 3. Facilitate Pedestrian Access: The proposed hotel’s proximity to UVA, Barracks Road Shopping Center, the Corner, and the City’s Main Street corridor encourages its guests to walk or utilize public transit. 4. Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces: A low-rise mass in the front of the building and the garage entry make the building scale appropriate at the street level. The wide sidewalk facilitates pedestrian activity and the limited open area on the site will be landscaped. 5. Preserve and Enhance Natural Character: The existing site is 99% impervious cover through urban storm water practices and landscaping. The new design reduces the impervious cover to nearly 93%. 6. Create a Sense of Place and an Inviting Public Realm: The design provides a seven foot pedestrian sidewalk, a six foot planted buffer along the curb, and the café space will activate the street and provide a community gathering space. 7. Create Restrained Communications: No signage has been submitted. Signage will require a Sign Permit application and approval by Zoning. 8. Screen Incompatible Uses and Appurtenances: Parking will be within the structure and, where visible, concealed by landscape and building elements. 9. Respect and Enhance Charlottesville’s Character: The proposed hotel maintains the site’s historic use for a hotel. It will contribute to a walkable/bikeable environment, create jobs, and create hotel rooms for visitors. Staff recommends approval of this proposal as submitted and suggests the following as conditions of approval: 1. Lamping for exterior lighting to be dimmable and not exceed a color temperature of 3000K, 2. Mortar color should be reviewed by staff, 3. Signage requires separate permits and approvals by Zoning. All internally illuminated signage shall appear to be lit white at night, 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened within the appurtenance, and 5. Metering and/or electrical service equipment for the proposed street lamps [to be installed in the public right of way] and for the hotel’s occupants will be fully concealed or located so as to allow full screening. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Mr. Palmer: On condition 4 regarding the roof screening, does it imply 360 degrees on all four sides? Mr. Werner: Yes. The last two conditions reflect things that we’ve heard in the community for EC and BAR projects. Essentially, if something is going to be put on the roof, it should be behind a screen. Applicant, Jake Fox, Waterstreet Studio: The building is oriented to the street and creates a nice streetscape with an active street level. A lot of pedestrian flow is expected based on where the building is in relation to UVA and the JPJ Arena, which is why all the entrances orient towards the front. The project will provide a wide buffered sidewalk for those on foot or in wheelchairs. There will be large shade trees with a 6 foot planted buffer and a mixed palette of dynamic plants to activate it. The owner of this project has been on the steering committee for 14 the Emmet Streetscape project and will be providing a 5 foot bike lane along the frontage of the property that will connect to the larger network being proposed. Along the southern edge of the site, there will be a low hedge and a small outdoor gathering space that is paved with permeable pavers, which will hold and infiltrate some of the storm water. Along the railroad on the northwest corner, there will be a screened mechanical yard with a building material that is sympathetic to the rest of the building. Neil Bhatt, NBJ Architecture: The first three levels are parking with a hotel lobby on the ground floor. The fourth floor has a board room, public area, and terrace, which will become a public space. The café on the first floor will activate the street. The fifth, sixth, and seventh floors are all guest rooms, except there is an open terrace on the seventh floor that allows for a rooftop bar and deck. The rooftop equipment will be located right in the middle of the footprint so they will not be visible from the four sides of the hotel and will be screened appropriately. After receiving a comment on the SUP, the design was updated to achieve three things. The temporary materials will be used with contemporary colors and interpretation. We have achieved the loading and unloading of goods and services within the structure by raising the floor height of the garage. There won’t be any deliveries outside, which will eliminate traffic congestion on Emmet Street. We were asked to eliminate some mass on the tower, so the cap was reduced to reduce its impact. The café on the street level provides street activation and provides seating on top of the café. One rendering shows the trees on the sidewalks and around the building while they are not fully grown and most of the building has the blue/black brick on the body of the building. The tower and the ground level have porcelain tiles, the metal panels of the top floor reduces the mass of the building, and clear glass will be used that is not reflective. The second rendering shows the trees once they are fully grown, which helps to cover most of the mass of the building. Mr. Fox: To further expand on the landscaping, 4 large elm trees are being proposed. They are about 50-70 feet tall, which will help to break down the mass of the building. Underneath those, there will be hardy evergreen grasses and hedges with some accents of tulips and day lilies that will bloom orange in the spring as a nod to UVA. Along the south there are some screen plantings being replaced with holly trees and another sycamore tree that will also help to scale down the massing. We are coordinating with the Emmet Streetscape project to make the street lighting consistent for the entire length of the project. Recessed soffit lighting will be used to highlight key entrance and outdoor spaces. There is also a row of low path lights along the south side of the building to activate that side. Lastly, the mechanical yard will have wall-mounted wall packs. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Commissioner Dowell: It looks like the trees are going to block the terrace above the café. Was this intentional? If the intention was to have additional seating above the café to help activate the street level, having the trees block it might not necessarily activate it. Mr. Fox: You’ll probably still be able to see it through the branches. They are deciduous trees, so they won’t be fully leafed all year. It also isn’t a complete hedge wall, it is an open canopy. It will provide a layer to that space if you look at it across the street, but down below it you’ll still see people above. Those trees will get 50-70 feet tall, which will be much higher than that area. 15 Commissioner Heaton: What happens if every room in the hotel is full at night and every light is on in the hotel? Is there a lighting ordinance? Mr. Werner: No. Commissioner Heaton: Does the glazing being used mitigate some of the impact? When some of the Downtown buildings are lit at night, they are very bright. Mr. Werner: The only time there have been discussions about interior lighting have been on the BAR with regards to ATM lobbies. Perhaps lighting should be something that is included during the guideline discussion. Commissioner Heaton: It might be helpful for staff to make evaluations on lighting as it deals with the nighttime illumination of the skyline. Some of the older buildings Downtown have smaller windows or even stairwells that are very bright at night. Chairman Green: This topic will be great to discuss during the next agenda item. Are there any further questions with this application for guidelines that we have in place today? Commissioner Stolzenberg: For recommendation #5, what does “for the hotel’s occupants” mean? Mr. Werner: This was just included based on other complaints in the past. Wherever their electrical service and metering is, it should be designed in a location on the building so that it can be screened. The condition is intended to distinguish between metering for street lights and any metering for the use of the hotel. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Condition #1 requires exterior lighting to be dimmable. This isn’t so bad unless LEDs are used, which can conceivably double the cost to make them dimmable. However, we aren’t saying that they actually need to be dimmed at any point, so what is the motivator behind that requirement? Mr. Werner: There are times when they would be dimmed. The condition suggests that it be reduced to that color temperature, but that they also be dimmable so it can be addressed if it becomes problematic in the future. COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION Commissioner Mitchell: Reminds the Commission of the guidance that was given the last time this was viewed. The EC regulations found in the zoning ordinances are intended to ensure that developments along EC routes are compatible with other developments and historic structures. Notes that he likes the design, but the color scheme is incompatible with the Entrance Corridor and it is incompatible with the structures that the route would lead to. Commissioner Lahendro: All of the buildings at the intersection of Emmet and Ivy are brick, as well as the hotel that was torn down. As part of the ERB, the guidelines state that there should be a design for a vision, new building designs should be compatible in massing, scale, materials, and colors with those structures that contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor, preserve history, encourage new contemporary design that integrates well with existing history buildings, to enhance the overall character and quality of the corridor, maintain the human scale in buildings and spaces, consider the building scale as it will be experienced by 16 the people who will pass by, live, work or shop there, etc. He shares that he could not disagree more with staff’s analysis of this proposal as it complies with these guidelines. Chairman Green: Disagrees with that statement because it is a welcome, new, and modern look along the EC. There is red brick in the Corridor, but this hotel is not a UVA property. The building previously there was tan and green and the buildings along the east side of Emmet Street going north aren’t red brick either. This design may fit in well with whatever is going to happen there next. Commissioner Mitchell: Notes that he cannot imagine that UVA would build something that compliments that color scheme when they build across the street. Chairman Green: The Planning Commission will not get a chance to comment on that before it is built, so it doesn’t matter. Ultimately, the EC guidelines are opinion-based. Commissioner Mitchell: The design is wonderful, but the color scheme is still a problem. Chairman Green: Reiterates that this is a great and welcoming new look to modernize the street and give it some character. Commissioner Mitchell: Can the applicant talk about what is driving the color scheme? Mr. Bhatt: We didn’t want to design for UVA’s red brick building because it isn’t for UVA. We wanted to use the contemporary trend that is all across the town. No one is building red brick hotels anymore and nothing in the guidelines said it had to be a red brick building. The attempt was to interpret the traditional materials into the contemporary trend of design in Charlottesville’s hospitality industry. Chairman Green: The new hotel at Monticello and Ridge Street is gray and doesn’t have any red brick on it. Commissioner Mitchell: That hotel isn’t in an Entrance Corridor leading into the University of Virginia. Mr. Werner: Notes that UVA’s chapel building is made of stone and there is not architectural homogeneity at the Lawn. The next question to consider is the extent beyond the EC that we are going with compatibility. Ultimately, as far as the criteria goes, the massing, articulation, colors, etc. are fairly open. The Corridor has a lot more going on in it and staff’s instructions in the guidelines are relative to that whole corridor. Commissioner Dowell: Does not feel that the brick is a make-or-break factor, but notes that The Fairfield Inn & Suites Marriot that was just constructed on Cherry Avenue does have red brick. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he may agree with Commissioner Lahendro regarding the red brick, however the design overall fits in really well with the new dorms that were put up. Commissioner Dowell: It is a much greater improvement than what was previously there. Commissioner Lahendro: To be clear, modern design and historic design are both great. However, as part of the Entrance Corridor Committee, the guidelines that were read show that it needs to be more compatible with materials that this EC is part of. 17 Mr. Palmer: The applicant mentioned the street trees a lot and the street trees as depicted with the 6 foot tree lawn differs from what is being presented in the Emmet Streetscape project. The difference is that the Emmet Streetscape Project would not include those trees, so there is a conflict there. The ERB may not have to deal with this, but it is important to mention it to the applicant. Chairman Green: Was this looked at in terms of compatibility? Mr. Werner: The owner is on the committee and has expressed repeatedly that he wants to coordinate with the project, so he could address that better. The trees will be one of the last things that are planted on the site, so there is plenty of time to resolve that. Commissioner Heaton: To clarify, when could we add in a condition to address the lighting and light pollution? Mr. Werner: There is nothing to address that in the guidelines now. As the guidelines are discussed in the future, lighting is something that can be added to the revisions. However, the City doesn’t regulate interior lights now. Commissioner Heaton: Does the architect think that these are best practices right now in terms of designing buildings and the light pollution from internal lights to the outside? Mr. Bhatt: Typically in a hotel room there is probably less light coming out than an office building. Office buildings don’t have all the blinds drawn, whereas most hotel rooms do have the curtains drawn. Commissioner Heaton: In an office building the lights are usually off at night. In the best case scenario for the hotel, every room is full every night and many lights will be on. Mr. Bhatt: Notes that not all the lights will be on in every hotel room, and the lighting is much dimmer than a normal building. We don’t think light pollution is a concern on a hotel project. Commissioner Heaton: It changes things as we add more and more tall buildings because it outlines the building very definitively. We should look into this as a City as we continue to grow and go upwards. Mr. Fox: Regarding the street trees, they haven’t seen what Mr. Palmer is referring to. We don’t want to get in the way of something that’s happening and we want to plug right into the Emmet Streetscape project, so we’re happy to work with that design as it evolves. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there any possibility that you’d go with non-LED lighting if it had to be dimmable, or would it be LED either way? Mr. Fox: LEDs can be dimmable and the color can be adjusted. We will go with whatever works, but efficiency and environmental friendliness of LED lights are the norm now. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Is there any risk of going with something like a halogen lamp so it will be dimmable if that condition is mandated? Mr. Fox: Generally, LED is where we are headed, but we haven’t gotten into the details yet. We would engage with an electrical engineer to fine-tune that. 18 Mr. Werner: Most BAR approvals that have lights added have used the same wording in that condition and no one has raised any questions about it. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you know if they all use LED lights? Mr. Werner: LEDs seem to be state of the art and that seems to be where it’s headed. It would be appropriate to be specific about what the Commission would like to be considered relative to the Emmet Streetscape project. Commissioner Dowell: Out of curiosity, could there be an option for the design to be red brick instead of black in the center? Mr. Bhatt: In this particular contemporary design, we chose a brick that we know is available and fits into the contemporary guideline. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to find that the proposed design for the Gallery Court Hotel at 140 Emmet Street satisfies the ERB’s criteria, is consistent with the Guidelines, and is compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Lamping for exterior lighting to be dimmable, or subject to replacements one time on direction of City planning staff, and not exceed a color temperature of 3000K, 2. Mortar color should be reviewed by staff, 3. Signage requires separate permits and approvals by Zoning. All internally illuminated signage shall appear to be lit white at night, 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened within the appurtenance, and 5. Metering and/or electrical service equipment for the proposed street lamps [to be installed in the public right of way] and for the hotel’s occupants will be fully concealed or located so as to allow full screening. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Commissioner Dowell: What made you add in the second part to condition #1? Commissioner Stolzenberg: If the lights are dimmable, twice as expensive, and the odds that someone complains is under 50%, it makes more financial and ecological sense to take the risk to swap out the LEDs with the dimmer one if people don’t like them. Chairman Green: If cost was a concern to the applicant, they would have questioned it. In the long term, LEDs save money and are more efficient. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he wants them to be LED lights, but is worried they may go another route. Commissioner Heaton: The applicant and the architect need to know that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission has to do with the new technology of lighting and what it does to the perception of our City. Commissioner Dowell: So why would we give them the option? Commissioner Stolzenberg: It doesn’t sound like there is any need to dim them on command, but if they get complaints and they want a lower brightness overall, it’s a one-time change. It doesn’t require a dimmer switch. Commissioner Dowell: Essentially, the word “dimmer” is more confining than just switching the lights out. 19 Ms. Robertson: Recommends that the Commission go back to the provisions of the guidelines and the decision has to be based on the guidelines. Commissioner Dowell: The applicant has no problem with dimmable lights, so the extra provision is unnecessary. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that he got the impression that they didn’t want it at all preferably. Ms. Robertson: Notes that she understands what staff is doing with the recommendation, but it’s important to make sure everything is very close to the guidelines. Chairman Green: On an enforceable level, no one is going to check every bulb to ensure that it is dimmable. It would only be in the instance that there were complaints that it would be checked. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to amend condition 1 of the motion so that lamping for exterior lighting does not exceed a color temperature of 3,000K. Commissioner Dowell does not second. Amendment fails. Mr. Werner: Lumens were intentionally not used and this is not unusual to what is normally used. It is recommended that the Commission leave it as is or remove it, but to not add more technical terms that might change the technical definition of it. Chairman Green: Notes that the County has a very robust lighting ordinance. When it comes to LED, it truly comes down to K factor and the brightness, as opposed to the lumens. Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to add a friendly amendment to change condition #1 as stated by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Amendment is approved 6-0. Having considered the standards set forth within the City Code, including the City Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Commissioner Stolzenberg moves to find that the proposed design for the Gallery Court Hotel at 140 Emmet Street satisfies the ERB’s criteria, is consistent with the Guidelines, and is compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Lamping for exterior lighting to be dimmable and not exceed a color temperature of 3000K, 2. Mortar color should be reviewed by staff, 3. Signage requires separate permits and approvals by Zoning. All internally illuminated signage shall appear to be lit white at night, 4. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened within the appurtenance, and 5. Metering and/or electrical service equipment for the proposed street lamps [to be installed in the public right of way] and for the hotel’s occupants will be fully concealed or located so as to allow full screening. Seconded by Commissioner Dowell. Motion is approved 4-2. 3. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Ms. Creasy: Notes that the intent of bringing this forward to the Commission at this point is to provide awareness and background information. It does need to be included in a future work plan and this provides some background as to how one could potentially move forward with the process. The BAR is currently working on a guideline update process of their own. 20 Commissioner Mitchell: When this is discussed, would it also be an appropriate time to talk about moving the ERB to the BAR? Ms. Robertson: The City could appoint a separate Entrance Corridor Review Board, it could be added to the BAR members, etc., but an ordinance change would be necessary. If the Commission is interested in discussing it, the members of the BAR should be engaged and have discussions through staff with City Council. Mr. Werner: Last year the BAR saw one of the highest number of items and it is steadily increasing. Regardless of where the ERB goes, many members of the Commission have dealt with Entrance Corridor discussions for a long time and the input would be invaluable. Commissioner Heaton: Notes that he does not think the ERB needs to be moved to the BAR. Chairman Green: How many projects overlap and go to both BAR and EC? Mr. Werner: So far there have not been that many, but it needs to be looked at more closely. Depending on how the Comprehensive Plan gets revised, it will instruct what we may or may not do with the guidelines. Chairman Green: It would be helpful to come back with suggestions from staff about what the industry standards are and let the Commission comment on them so that we aren’t creating the guidelines. Additionally, as we are trying to be more business friendly and create economic development, it’s important to not make applicants go before two different governing bodies to get something done. Mr. Werner: Notes that it’s helpful to solicit feedback from the Planning Commission outside of meetings as well. Chairman Green: How does that work for transparency? Ms. Robertson: You are allowed to take a poll and take individual members’ opinions on specific items. Chairman Green: Is this something that can be added as a 30 minute discussion during the work session? Ms. Creasy: It would have to be deemed a special meeting in order to take a vote. Chairman Green: For instance, the Gallery Court Hotel was on the regular agenda in January. If we have projects that can be discussed in a more informal setting during a work session, they usually turn out better. It may be more appropriate to do something like that if someone is only looking to get feedback from the Commission or the ERB. V. Adjournment 8:40 pm – Chairman Green moves to adjourn until the second Tuesday in March 2019. Planning Commission Work Session January 22, 2019 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Lisa Green, Commissioners Jody Lahendro, Lyle Solla-Yates, Hosea Mitchell, Rory Stolzenberg, and Gary Heaton Members Absent: Commissioner Taneia Dowell Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Jeff Werner, and Kari Spitler Chairman Green called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. 1. Preliminary Discussion – Seminole Square Mixed Use Development COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS Ms. Creasy: Highlights that the applicant is currently proposing to submit a Special Use Permit application under the current regulations for density and varied setbacks, where one building would be under Entrance Corridor review. The applicant is looking to gather information and comments from the Commission before submitting a formal proposal. Commissioner Lahendro: After the applicant’s presentation, it would be helpful to hear from staff about how this aligns or doesn’t align with the Small Area Plan for Hydraulic/29. Ms. Creasy: Mr. Ikefuna was part of the committee and may have more information on that, but a lot of it does mirror the Small Area Plan. Chairman Green: Notes that the Small Area Plan has been approved and the 2013 Comprehensive Plan has been amended to add that plan to it because they were applying for Smart Scale funding. Did the Smart Scale funding come through? Ms. Creasy: It wasn’t recommended in the first round, and it is unclear where it stands right now. PRESENTATION Applicant – Scott Collins, Collins Engineering: The purpose for the meeting is to get feedback on this project. The presented plan is consistent with the Small Area Plan and we would like to make sure this project incorporates the aspects of that plan, as well as looking at things that could have been missed. The idea was to create a mixed use development with a residential component and to have the ability to do commercial on the first floor of some of the buildings. There is a 22 foot elevation difference and in order to work with that terrain, we would create parking underneath the structures to limit the amount of surface parking. The existing site plan amendments that are currently under review for approval 1 address these elements. We would like to incorporate the trail way connection from the shopping center and other developments down to Meadowcreek. There is also an existing storm water pipe and a gap is being created to allow the infrastructure to carry water and drainage through the property without putting any other building structures on top of it. As it stands, this is not a by-right plan. Residential is allowed with an SUP up to 43 dwelling units per acre and we would like to hear from the Commission regarding what they’d like to see in terms of density for the area. The corridor has been commercial for 20-30 years and it would be great to introduce residential areas next to that. The goal is to create smaller buildings because there are minimum and maximum setbacks from public streets and the grid system would work better this way. David Mitchell: Notes that the residential dwellings would be at market rate, but recognizes that it is a negotiation and is open to hearing what the Commission needs from them. Mark Kestner: Architecturally, this project was approached in a way to enhance breaking up the mass. The architectural intention for creating smaller buildings was to create natural lighting, have more greenspaces, and activate the exteriors with balconies. Quality materials like brick, stone, metal, real stucco, etc. will be used. The plan would activate the first floor with retail and it would be filled with amenities like a dog park, pool, etc. Overall, the concept was to have a bona fide community where you could walk around. However, cars are still used very heavily in this area so it is an expectation for the user to have a parking spot in this location, which is why it is fully stocked. DISSCUSSION Chairman Green: Wasn’t part of this area put aside in the small area plan to be a park? Mr. Mitchell: Yes, a 4 acre park. However, it isn’t economically possible. The goal was to create a greenspace area in between the buildings, which would be about 2 acres in total. The reason for the park was to connect to the trails and this plan achieves that. There will be a dedicated trail that is an extension of the multi-use path. Even though it is private property, it will be used as an open greenspace within the project. Chairman Green: The buildings are going to be broken up with amenities in the asphalt space. What amenities could asphalt bring? Mr. Mitchell: The trails and greenspace are the amenities, but you would have to go across the asphalt to get there. All of the buildings will have parking underneath them. This type of structured parking is necessary to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan because you can’t get the density and residential layouts being called for otherwise. The surface parking that will be left is primarily to be used for commercial tenants. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Would you charge for parking? Mr. Mitchell: No. Residents are entitled to a parking spot and they shouldn’t have to pay for it. 2 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why not just drop the rent by the amount you charge for parking to create a disincentive? Mr. John Neil: There aren’t enough people who don’t want them and would be happy with having no car, so it doesn’t work. Mr. Ikefuna: Asks if they are serious about creating a rooftop garden on the property. Mr. Mitchell: Yes. There is a storm water value in doing it and the garden would help mitigate it. All of the buildings would have access to a rooftop deck that can be used and filled with amenities. We would like to see a perimeter of real green rooftop or the gardens that have been discussed, but to also have a walkable area that can survive foot traffic and doesn’t create a huge maintenance issue. The goal would be to have 30% of each rooftop be a green rooftop and the rest would be split between mechanical units and use by tenants. Commissioner Mitchell: What is the setback requirement? Ms. Creasy: It would be a maximum/minimum and it would be off of Hillsdale. Mr. Mitchell: The first building will meet the requirement, but all the rest of them are too far apart. The design standards in the City code do not facilitate the construction of the Comprehensive Plan. The only tool to fix that is to go through an SUP process. Ms. Creasy: Notes that the applicant would have to get an SUP for the density anyway, so part of that could be to ask for varied setbacks. Otherwise, in order to meet the setback requirement, it would have to be one large building. Mr. Mitchell: The SUP application also requires us to go before the Planning Commission again once the SUP is approved to review the site plan where the setbacks can be looked at again and approved. An SUP application almost requires the level of detail of a site plan, which will be part of the package. Assuming that is approved, the Planning Commission would have a chance to review it again before the preliminary site plan is actually approved. Chairman Green: Isn’t a rezoning more appropriate for this area? Ms. Creasy: That was discussed and the other potential tool to address it would be through a PUD. Chairman Green: It looks like what the applicant is trying to achieve seems more appropriate for a PUD, which comes with a rezoning. It’s a tradeoff because then the Commission wouldn’t be able to place conditions on it unless they went the SUP route. Mr. Mitchell: The goal is to show the Commission the general plan. They’ve looked at the options like creating one big building, but they would like to build something that meets the Comprehensive Plan and this matches it pretty well. 3 Commissioner Mitchell: How many units would there be? What is the density per acre and what is the by-right? Mr. Mitchell: There would be 500 units and the density would be 43 per acre. The by-right is zero. Commissioner Mitchell: What does the infrastructure look like there in terms of utilities? Ms. Creasy: They would have to build all of that infrastructure. Mr. Mitchell: Right now there is a lot of asphalt, which is all part of the nature of the redevelopment. Eventually there will be more greenspace. There is plenty of water and sewer on site and the power company can provide anything that is needed. Mr. Collins: In discussing whether to apply for an SUP v. a PUD, both routes are essentially the same. After speaking with staff, it seemed like an SUP might be a better route for the project because of the option to add conditions. With a PUD, you look for something extraordinary to incorporate the elements of the Small Area Plan and offer affordability, which this plan encompasses. Notes that he would like to hear more about which path is preferred. Mr. Mitchell: Shares that he would prefer to go through the SUP process, which would allow for the Commission to review the preliminary site plan. The two things that are essentially needed beyond by right are the setbacks and the density. Commissioner Lahendro: Has this project been conceived with any idea of what will happen to Seminole Square in the future? Mr. Mitchell: In 20 years, a lot of the area will start to look similar to this plan if we are allowed to build it. It’s important to respond to the market and it’s still a commercial corridor, which is why all of the first floor of buildings on Hillsdale will be commercial. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that they would be introducing their own customers with this development that moves away from an auto centric character and more towards pedestrian movement. It’s important to be sure that has been thought about in detail and how it would connect to it. The Small Area Plan states that a transit center would enhance the development. Mr. Mitchell: Right now the buses stop in the middle of Hillsdale and the plan is to create a space for the bus to pull off to the side of the road and out of traffic to load. Chairman Green: Thinks that there is a way to make it more connected without breaking it up with asphalt. If not all buildings have retail, some of the surface parking can be eliminated to create more connectivity. The whole concept behind the Small Area Plan is for pedestrian connectivity. Mr. Mitchell: Notes that they have a count of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for 1-3 bedroom apartments and the City only requires one space. As for retail, it depends on the type of business because services require less parking, whereas places like grocery stores require a little more. However, he can look into getting rid of some of those spaces if it’s possible. 4 Chairman Green: Notes that buildings 3, 5, 7, and 9 will not have retail and does not need as much parking. Mr. Mitchell: The building has 48 units on average and only 24 parking spaces can go underneath the building. It might be helpful to show a detailed commercial square footage v. residential units. He will provide the City requirements v. what they believe the market wants. Commissioner Stolzenberg: The market might change if they are charged externalized costs. Mr. Mitchell: That would be stepping well outside what the market is right now in this area. This is a risk and we have to stay within the financial means. Commissioner Lahendro: Perhaps it should have the flexibility to provide that parking now, but have a plan in the future to reuse the parking area for other things. Mr. Mitchell: That could absolutely be done. If the market changes and there are a lot of open parking spaces, it will become another revenue generated income or an amenity for the community. Commissioner Lahendro: Notes that he is personally very pleased with the project. This area has been identified as a high intensity mixed use area and the residential units will be a tremendous benefit for the shopping center and the City in general. However, there may be some architectural issues that need to be discussed in the future. Mr. Ikefuna: It’s important to provide flexibility for the developers so they can make adjustments in the future if market conditions change and that has been discussed extensively with the applicant. There must also be partnership between the City owners and the County. Chairman Green: This is a partnership, but we are trying to create a more urban area and there could be some pencil sharpening on the pedestrian connectivity and not breaking it up with all the asphalt. Right now, there are too many cars and too much asphalt to walk. Mr. Neil: Notes that they are trying to achieve that with covered walkways and bringing parking closer. Mr. Mitchell: That is the goal, but it can’t financially all happen at once. Right now, this is the parcel that is available for redevelopment and the rest of it is not yet available. Once the site plan is done, there will be a defined, covered walking area to go all the way around the shopping center. There will also be more trails behind it and everything will be as interconnected as possible. Hopefully this will be the first domino of redeveloping this area. Chairman Green: Are these the final designs of the buildings? Mr. Mitchell: This is just the first attempt on the buildings. There are some limitations to residential when constructing buildings instead of apartment buildings because there is a maximum depth and length that you can go. The layout is defined, but a pedestal system could be incorporated. 5 Commissioner Lahendro: Architecturally, a wonderful trail has been set up by the large building that goes down the spine of the residential units, but it would be better if it went through the circle to Hillsdale. Additionally, the buildings should step up from Hillsdale because it’s all very uniform in its appearance. Lastly, the lower floor needs to be engaging and transparent. Mr. Mitchell: Notes that the large building from the renderings is the way it is because of the minimum/maximum setback rule. However, it could be oriented in a different way. In terms of the lower floor, they need to be kept the same because of its cost effectiveness. The commercial areas will be activated and the structural elements in the residential areas will still line up, but perhaps the door entrances can be reversed. All units have to be accessible and the architect will need to determine exactly how it will work. Mr. Kestner: Architecturally, this plan is in a very early stage and it is uncommon to work from the outside inward to see if the project can be done. There is still a long way to go with the architecture, connectivity with the site, relationships between the units, creating greenspace, etc. and this is meant to be a placeholder to help set guidelines for when the design is being created. Mr. Mitchell: The property drops 22 feet from front to back and there will have to be ramps, steps, and retaining walls as it steps down, which will have to tie into the buildings to facilitate entrances to the buildings. There are a lot of details to come, but we will do our best to make it look great. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Do you feel that the housing has been maximized for this area? In other words, would more housing be built if there were no restrictions at all? Mr. Mitchell: Housing has been maximized because of the parking restrictions. This is very dense and the envelope is being pushed to maximize it as much as possible. The buildings would also fit well into the site with the surrounding buildings. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Are you using concrete podium and wood construction? Mr. Mitchell: We are moving away from wood. There would be a concrete structure for the parking and metal studs would be used instead of wood, which lowers fire rating issues. It also allows us to go a little higher structurally and add more flexibility if metal is used. Commissioner Mitchell: Agrees with Chairman Green that this is ideal for a PUD. Is building #11 the only one that needs to be looked at for the Entrance Corridor? Mr. Mitchell: That is correct, but that building will dictate how the rest of the buildings look. The goal is to have about 20,000 square feet of commercial under that building because it is an endcap of the larger length. All of the first floors of the buildings will be constructed with 14 feet for flexibility. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Shares that he is excited about this because it addresses a series of issues in our long term strategic plan for transportation that have been worked on for about 20 years and agrees that there should be more greenspace if possible. There are no issues with height in this area, so capping the buildings at six stories isn’t necessary if it can be built larger. 6 Mr. Mitchell: That could be looked into, but again parking will have to be considered. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Aren’t affordable units exempt from parking requirements? Mr. Mitchell: Does not believe that is the case. However, there is still a difference between what the City requires and what he thinks the market requires. Commissioner Heaton: In terms of construction, could it be constructed with the possibility of making it higher in the future? Mr. Mitchell: Typically you could add at least one floor to any building, but there is always the issue of tearing the roof off of a building with existing tenants. Five stories is pretty aggressive for the market as it stands. Commissioner Stolzenberg: What is the target market? Mr. Mitchell: We like to be the low cost provider of high quality housing, so it would be geared in the Class B price range. In order to create a building that costs the amount that will allow us to be in that price range, repetition in the buildings and density are needed. It’s also important to construct the buildings out of quality materials so that they last. Chairman Green: Is there a height restriction with the Special Use Permit? Ms. Creasy: There is a height restriction under the Highway Corridor, which is 80 feet. Mr. Mitchell: Notes that 80 feet would probably allow for a maximum of six stories. Chairman Green: Perhaps it would be a good idea to build in the flexibility so the applicant doesn’t have to come back for an SUP/PUD again. If 43 dwelling units per acre is the goal, it might be beneficial to ask for more to have that flexibility. Mr. Mitchell: For the building height, we could go three stories on the first one, four stories on the next one, and five-seven on the ones after that in order to keep the same unit count. The key is to get to the overall count. If we did a PUD and there was no restriction on unit numbers, would a future plan be extended down the road like a “phase 2” plan to avoid coming back before the Planning Commission? Again, it’s important to note that the plan is to manage this space long term. Commissioner Lahendro: In developing the entire lot, it would only make sense if you intend to do it because the Commission will want some assurance that what is approved will be there in the future. Mr. Mitchell: We have tenants that have 20-25 year leases, so that cannot be promised at this point. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Why are you against having seven stories? Is it more costly or do you think you cannot fill that many units? Additionally, will parking be assigned? Mr. Mitchell: Unless we were to drill down and have multiple layers of parking underneath the building, it wouldn’t work financially or from a parking standpoint. The parking spaces underneath will require a 7 card and possibly a fee, but there will not be assigned parking spots because it causes conflict among tenants. Commissioner Heaton: Do you own offsite places that could be part of the management of the property to park extra cars? Mr. Mitchell: There is nothing within walking distance. Some residents could also utilize the commercial spaces if necessary. There is clearly a shared parking culture that exists, but commercial tenants do not see it that way. It’s a process that changes over time and we are working on changing that slowly. Our decisions are not just about the City’s requirements, but they are also determined by what we believe can survive in the market. Mr. Ikefuna: Asks what the timeline looks like for the project. Mr. Mitchell: We will start building as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Collins: Is the Commission leaning more towards the PUD option? Commissioner Mitchell: Either one would work, but this is an ideal PUD application. Ms. Creasy: Notes that staff discussed both options. Either option would get them to the goals that they were looking at in the current rendering. Mr. Mitchell: If they are both the same, the preference would be to take whichever route is quicker. If everything can get put together, it will ideally come before the Commission during the March meeting. Chairman Green: It might be best to leave it up to staff to determine the best method. Ms. Creasy: Both processes are very similar, but if the applicant wants to use the iteration that is before us now, it might be more expedient to go with the SUP. With rezoning, there are extra steps involved, but he has a zoning tool to address the two issues with the current code. Commissioner Stolzenberg: Can they give us proffers? Ms. Creasy: An SUP would allow for conditions to address the impacts. Chairman Green: Reminds the Commission they cannot legally ask for proffers under state law. We can only discuss the mitigation of impacts on the property. Ms. Creasy: From the SUP side of things, conditions can be recommended from all parties that will address the impacts of the development. Chairman Green: Would also like to see some aspect of affordable housing presented. Mr. Mitchell: The numbers would have to be run first. The project in its own existence helps with affordable housing because it introduces more units into the market. 8 Commissioner Stolzenberg: Notes that the argument could also be made that it directly reduces the percentage of affordable units away from the 15% target set by Council. Mr. Mitchell: By providing more of a supply, there will be less of a demand. Ultimately, we don’t feel that the project causes an additional impact on the affordable housing issue. We would like to help with the situation overall, but we just have to look at the numbers. It all has to fit in an economic model and it is a cost to rent a unit for less than the cost of construction. Chairman Green: Notes that the units would be put in a location that is prime real estate for a lot of the workers living in the area. Commissioner Solla-Yates: Would like to encourage some constructed parking to concentrate people to one place. It would be less expensive and there wouldn’t be as much of a worry about the parking in every single square inch. Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps some buildings could have two levels. The restriction there is that the parking layout requires a certain dimension and the travel way has to be taken into account. Having multiple level parking structures does not fit the residential depth numbers. If we did something like that, it would have to go on one of the more odd shaped buildings. It would allow for more underground and centralized parking, which might help with more greenspace. 2. Public Comment Michael Barnes, Greenbrier Neighborhood Association: The Greenbrier Neighborhood Association would like to be copied on any reports about the project. Notes that he is generally very excited about having connectivity between the neighborhood and the shopping center. However, there wasn’t much discussion about the park right behind this development and the connections to it. It’s important to be sure that the connectivity to the rest of the City is discussed as we think about open space and allowing the neighbors to get to the development. Adjournment: 6:55 pm. 9 CITY OFCHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: March 12, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM18-00004 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: March 1, 2019 Applicant: BKKW, LLC Applicants Representative: Bruce Wardell of BKKW, LLC Current Property Owner: BKKW, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: Lyman Street (two unaddressed lots) Tax Map/Parcels #: Tax Map 58, Parcels 289.2 and 358E Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.197 acres (8,581 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: R-1 (Parcel 289.2) and PUD (Parcel 358E) Tax Status: Parcels are up to date on payment of taxes. Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41. Applicant’s Request (Summary) Bruce Wardell of BKKW, LLC, owners of Tax Map 58 Parcels 289.2 and 358E (“Subject Property”) has requested a rezoning to R-2 Residential for both parcels. Parcel 289.2 is currently zoned R-1 in accordance with Section 34-13 of the City Code, having previously been an unzoned parcel of railroad right-of-way. Parcel 358E is currently zoned Planned Unit Development. It is a residual piece of land that was included in the Belmont Lofts PUD. The Belmont Lofts PUD authorized the construction of the multi-family condominium project on Douglas Avenue adjacent to the Page 1 of 9 Subject Property, and the four residential units on the south side of Lyman Street, across the road from the Subject Property. The applicant has submitted an additional request for an infill Special Use Permit on the property (SP18-00011) that is conditioned on the approval of this application for rezoning. The applicant previously applied in 2013 for a rezoning of these parcels to Downtown Extended. City Council unanimously denied the proposal on August 18, 2014. The denial was based on the opinion of Council that mixed-use zoning, and specifically the possibility of commercial activity, were inappropriate in the location, in proximity to low-density residential uses. Council further expressed concern that the zoning and land use designations of the area were not harmonious with the existing uses at the north end of Douglas Avenue. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 9 Zoning Map KEY - Gray: M-I Manufacturing Industrial; Orange: R-2 – Two-Family, Low-Density Residential; Magenta: Downtown Extended Corridor (DE); Aqua Blue: Planned Unit Development 2016 Aerial Page 3 of 9 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map KEY – Maroon: Business & Technology; Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-41(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1)Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2)Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3)Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4)When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Page 4 of 9 Preliminary Analysis The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject properties to R-2 and is congruently requesting an Infill Special Use Permit to reduce the minimum lot size on the property to facilitate the development of three single-family residential units. Under the current zoning and lot layout the subject properties could not accommodate any development. If rezoned to R-2 the subject properties DUA would be: • By-right: The property would consist of two R-2 lots that are non-conforming as to setbacks and – in the case of Parcel 289.2 – frontage. The zoning ordinance permits boundary line adjustments between two non-conforming lots provided no additional lots are created. This would permit the owner to reorient the lots to Lyman Street. In order to develop the lots, however, they would most likely need to seek a variance for the required setbacks on the lots. • Special Use Permit (per Z.O. Sec. 34-165) permits the applicant to seek reduced minimum lot sizes and accompanying adjustments to setbacks and frontage requirements. The maximum number of lots the applicant can seek is three, which they have requested via a congruent SUP application. The proposed development, as described in the SUP application (SP18-00011), will allow a maximum of six (6) dwelling units in the form of three single-family detached houses with accessory dwelling units subject to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District Zoning District (Parcel 358E) (Parcel 289.2) 1949 C - Industrial C - Industrial 1958 M-2 Industrial M-2 Industrial 1976 M-1 Industrial Unzoned* 1991 M-1 Industrial (Planned Unit Unzoned* Development Overlay) 2003 Planned Unit Development Unzoned* * - Per Sec. 34-13 of the City Code, unzoned parcels are automatically zoned R-1. Page 5 of 9 Sec. 34-42 1. Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; a. Land Use The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 4. Staff Analysis The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and the surrounding properties to the south as Business and Technology. Business and Technology areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “permit small scale offices that cater to start-up businesses and technological development, as well as commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer oriented commercial areas.” During the consideration of the previous rezoning request, City Council expressed concern about how the Comprehensive Plan designated the area. The applicant notes in their application materials that “The 2018 Comprehensive Plan [Draft] shows this property as medium density and primarily residential in nature…” The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Properties to R-2 zoning, which would preclude any commercial uses with the exception of home occupation requests. The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Zoning District Current Use East PUD Multi-family Residential South PUD Two-Family Residential West DE Commercial Uses North DE Railroad, Single and Multi-Family Residential Staff finds the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map, but may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned in the applicant’s application materials, the proposed rezoning would enable the property to be used for low-density residential uses that can take advantage of a favorable location for pedestrian activity. Page 6 of 9 b. Housing The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 4. Staff Analysis The applicant cites the advantageous site location as a desirable factor in the rezoning request. The Subject Property is in proximity to the Downtown Mall and Downtown Belmont commercial areas. There is a robust network of sidewalks near the Subject Property that will enable the potential residents to walk to destinations in the City’s urban core. c. Historic Preservation & Urban Design The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(2), is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 4. Staff Analysis The property is not within any of the City’s design control districts. Several residents have expressed support for the project, however, because the applicant was previously involved with the adjacent Belmont Lofts PUD, and the proposed designs for the residences on the Subject Property complement the design of the buildings in the PUD. 2. Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; The applicant’s own analysis of the development’s furtherance of the general welfare of the entire community is provided in the Background section of the proposed rezoning application on Page 4. Staff Analysis Staff finds that a zoning change to R-2, with an infill SUP for minimum lot size reduction as noted in the applicant’s narrative statement, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing options. The proposal would convert a vacant piece of land on the fringe of the CSX railroad tracks into at least three housing units. 3. Whether there is a need and justification for the change; The applicant has provided information on the factors that led to a request to rezone the subject properties to R-2 in the Narrative section of their application on Page 3. Staff Analysis The property currently has no development potential without a zoning change. Parcel 358E is subject to the restrictions of the Belmont Lofts PUD, despite not being programmed in the original PUD plan. Parcel 289.2 does not meet the typical Page 7 of 9 dimensional requirements for development under the R-1 zoning, although the Zoning Administrator does have the authority to grant alternative yard requirements in these circumstances. Staff finds there is sufficient justification for the request. 4. When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. The location of the subject properties are currently served by existing public utilities and facilities. The applicant has provided a narrative statement on adverse effects and mitigation in their application materials on Page 6. Staff Analysis Any development on the subject properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support development. The purpose set forth per Z.O. Sec. 34-350(b) is: Two-family (R-2). The two-family residential zoning districts are established to enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low-density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. There are two categories of R- 2 zoning districts: R-2, consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. Included within this district are certain areas located along the Ridge Street corridor, areas of significant historical importance. In relation to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification, staff finds the development would meet the intent of the R-2 district. Public Comments Received Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on February 21, 2019 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • General traffic concern with the geometry of the intersections at either end of Lyman Street and making sure the development does not negatively impact the sight lines. • Several residents appreciated the planting beds in front of the houses, and one resident supporting waiving the required sidewalk in front of the units. • The residents in attendance supported the design of the houses as harmonious with the existing character of the street. Page 8 of 9 As of the date of this report, staff has received no comments from the public outside of the public meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials could contribute to many goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has justification for the zoning change request. The proposed development would provide additional housing units that would be harmonious with the adjacent buildings as well as the land use pattern in the surrounding area. The Subject Property is in a location that would encourage pedestrian activity, making it an appropriate location to target for residential development. Additionally, the applicant responded to the concerns from the community raised during the previous rezoning regarding the potential for commercial activity on the site with a request that would prohibit such uses. Staff recommends the application be approved. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject properties from PUD and R-1 to R-2, on the basis that the proposal would service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application to rezone the subject properties from PUD and R-1 to R-2, on the basis that the proposal would not service the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Dated December 26, 2019 B. Applicant’s Narrative Statement and supporting documents dated December 26, 2018 and revised February 28, 2019. Page 9 of 9 City of Charlottesville Application for Rezoning ProjectName: , . ~rf'\d.Vl ~ycc:-i" f-e"?ic:!elflCL-«-:.> Address of Property: . ---.-. ,--..~~~ ...--:= · · e;;&; ....---~ ~.----. - ~------., .. ~~M~'"=""J!>~~ ~ ,-----,..,.~.:;;!!'------ Tax Map and Parcel Numbe~(s): Th? -? & · Z8j.. Z 1 ,M..~ -56 .. 3*56 e.. Current Zoning: f"~ ~ - P.· \ l rA9'fe,'-- , ~ .- 1:"~ Proposed Zoning: f- ·Z Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: ~ l t-4..\!7'> a ~µ.N0~41 Applicant: ~~ '€2- . w .6:PV\Sl.A..,. ~ e~W \..~ . Address: '* \\"2- · 41'+ ~ He , ~~b.{Zo(...0'1\G.C;."-' l \.,.\,..w \ V A Z.240'2 Phone: 41\2>'1· -\1 \ .. ..\\ ~~ Email: bwcL~d..:. l\ @ W"-'-~"Gh;\.c.t::....\-cs. . U> Applicant's Role in the Development (check one): / owner Owner's Agent Contract Purchaser Address: l\2 11\-. ~+vz:.c.+ \...l~ . ~~ ...\o "'c:: ~vc. ll-z:. ,'IQ.. Z Z1D "Z Phone: 4'2>'1· 11 t.. 1 l lrO Email: b~tlwt..ll @ .\?\l'\4.>-a....r~ c.\.c..~~ . t (1) Applicant's and (2) Owner's Signatures (l)Signatur&~ Print ~"'tz.: W/'J,,~~ate l~· Z"t ·<& Applicant's (Circle One)~ LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify): _ _ _ _ _ __ Signature~ ??J.~ Print '°B~a;; 4Z-.. \}t)A..~ fiii/...A-> Date l'Z. • ~ • •!> (2) Owner's (Circle On~ Manager Corporate Officer (specify) _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify):_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1 City of Charlottesville Pre-Application Meeting Verification Pre-Applicat10 n -Meetingd)~te: Lo \/cG-elM4~~ ­? I' z.~ Applican·t ~s · ~ep·r~s-entatl~~; •' ~·i-~·c_-~ .· f; . w~·.rt>k., l l Planner: °P.:>f" fi:t.V\ '··" r-\--~\ve-i~1 P\· ''' ',. ' · · ., · ~ ,..,·:,. · '' Other City Officials in Attendance: ~· .. ' .; t·. , •. ; ii ft • ,, ...~. ! .· . ... '" ( I• ' ' ·.'' , ,, ' .~ ·. ''I'. '• , .. ., The following items will be required supplemental information for this application and must be submitted with the completed application package: ·" 1. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ -~ ·I·. •.. I • ' ~ .. .j I . I ' • •J . ••• .• $ ... 5. ' . . . ' -~ ' ' • J .~ -... <' • : <· t • Planner Signat ure: ______________________~ 2 City of Charlottesville Application Checklist ·Project Name: ·~----------------- I certify that the following documentation is ATTACHED to th is app li cation: G'.'J 34-158(a){l): a site plan (ref. City Code 34-802(generally); 34-1083(communications facilities) [;'.j 34-158(a){3): Low-impact development (LID) methods worksheet (required for developments that include non-residential uses, and developments proposing 3 or more SFDs or TFDs) 34-158(a){4): a building massing diagram, and building elevations (required for applications proposing alteration of a building height or footprint, or construction of any new building(s)) 34-158(a)(5) and 34-12: affordable housing data. (i) how many (if any) existing dwelling units on the property are an "affordable dwelling unit" by the city's definitions? (ii) Will existing affordable units, or equivalent affordable units, remain following the development? (iii) What is the GFA of the project? GFA of residential uses? GFA of non-residential uses? [A' 34-157(a)(l) Graphic materials that illustrate the context of the project, and a narrative statement as to compatibility with existing patterns of use and development ~ 34-157(a){2) Narrative statement : applicant's analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan ~ 34-157(a)(3) Narrative statement: compliance with applicable USBC provisions ~ 34-157(a)(4) Narrative statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts 34-158(a){6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) All items noted on the Pre-Application Meeting Verification. Applicant Date \-Z. . z,.~ · it; (For entities, specify: Officer, Member, Manager, Trustee, etc.) ' .4 ... .' . 1 . .. ~ .. ,. 3 City of Charlottesville Community Meeting __~--~-~-z::_t_~_~ Project Na me: __L_'1 __ __"'-~--- __,_·w::k • Section 34-41(c){2) of the Code of the City of Charlottesville (adopted October 19, 2015 ) requires appli­ cants seeking rezonings and special use permits to hold a community meeting. The purpose of a communi­ ty meeting is to provide citizens an opportunity to receive information about a proposed development'; about applicable zoning procedures, about applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, and to give ., " citizens an opportunity to ask questions. No application for a rezoning shall be placed on any agenda fo(, a public hearing, until the required community meeting has been held and the director of neighborhood development services determines that the application is ready for final review through the formal public hearing process . By signing this document, the applicant acknowledges that it is responsible for the following, in connection to the community meeting required for this project: 1. Following consultation with the city, the applicant will establish a date, time and location for the community meeting. The applicant is responsible for reserving the location, and for all related costs. 2. The applicant will mail, by U.S. mail, first-class, postage pre-paid, a notice of the community meeting to a list of addresses provided by the City. The notice will be mailed at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the ., community meeting. The applicant is responsible for the cost of the mailing. At least 7 calendar days prior to the meeting, the applicant will provide the city with an affidavit confirming that the mailing was timely completed . 3. The applicant will attend the community meeting and present the details of the proposed application. If the applicant is a business or other legal entity (as opposed to an individual) then the meeting shall be attended· by a corporate officer, an LLC member or manager, or another individual who can speak for the entity that is t_he · applicant. Additionally, the meeting shall be attended by any design professional or consultant who has · prepared plans or drawings submitted with the application. The applicant shall be prepared to explain all of the details of the proposed development, and to answer questions from citizens. 4. Depending on the nature and complexity of the application, the City may designate a planner to attend the community meeting. Regardless of whether a planner attends, the City will provide the applicant with guidelines, procedures, materials and recommended topics for the applicant's use in conducting the community meeting. 5. On the date of the meeting, the applicant shall make records of attendance and shall also document that the meeting occurred through photographs, video,' or other evidence satisfactory tothe City. Records of attendance may include using the mailing list referred to in #1 as a sign-in sheet (requesting attendees to check off their name(s)) and may include a supplemental attendance sheet. The City will provide a format acceptable for use as the supplemental attendance sheet. Applicant: ~c.-c-. \2. w~vJ<--l) By: ~ Signaturel l - Qy_./)J Print ~ ~- ""'~liU..- Date \'"Z· 2 '1 · l t, -~-~~-- Its: _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 4 :voTTEsp. City of Charlottesville i149 ----- ~ a~ Personal Interest Statement ~ ~~ ~G!NIA·,~(\. I . ! I swear under oath before a notary public that: ' A member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. Or ~ . ' ,• . .. i .. t. 1• ·' ' ' No member-of-the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. And A member of the City of Charlottesville City Council (identified below), or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application. City Councilor(s): -----~~-~---------------------­ Or No member of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, or their immediate family member, has a personal interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of this application . Applicant: on.c-c....F-. Wa,,J-c-1( . .. •' I .. .. l . . ' . By: Signatuie» 90JJJJ. Print ~~ 1Z. 'W~ Date ., l'Z.· Z.'t . tt. Its : _ _ _,. --'- ' ---'--- '" ----"-·~ ' · · --'-----'_ _ _ _ _ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) Commonwealth of Virginia City of Charlottesville The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn before me this _ _ __ day of ,20_ _ by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ Notary S i g n a t u r e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ­ Registration#: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E x p i r e s - - - - - - - - - - - ­ 5 yOTT.EsP City of Charlottesville ifil~t Owner's Authorizations ~ • ~~1~____,____,____,____,........,____,____,.....;.:.____,____,~~ · ~: ...... , Date: \2.,. Z'i . l~ By(sign name): $ ~ LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specific): _ _ _ _ __ 6 City of Charlottesville Disclosure of Equitable Ownership Project Na me: _L--'1'1....;;.;m~W"-.----'-~-li_~ _+_~.;.__....;;..\_~~____;;... __ _ __ \ Section 34-8 of the Code of the City of Charlottesville requires that an applicant for a special use permit make complete disclosure of the equitable ownership "real parties in interest") of the real estate to be affected. Followi~g-below I have provided the nam~s and addresses of each of the real parties in interest, including, without limitation : each stockholder or a eorporation; each of the individual officers and direc­ tors of a corporation; each of the individual members of an LLC (limited liability companies, professional limited liability companies): the trustees and beneficiaries of a trust, etc. Where multiple corporations, companies or trusts are involved, identify real parties in interest for each entity listed. Name ~W"'-' ' ~ 12..' IAJo..~J°" ll Address \1\~ o\ J ~~ ~AJ , C.~\ ~c,....,,l~, "" U1c) \ Attach additional sheets as needed. Note: The requirement of listing names of stockholders does not apply to a corporation whose stock is traded on a national or local stock exchange and which corporation has more than five hundred (500) shareholders. By: .(2-.._ ('\ I r--,, n(J Signature ~~ Print ~G.a 1Z- VJ~ Date rz. "Z "i' I f> Its: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) 7 City of Charlottesville Fee Schedule Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Rezoning Application Fee $2000 1. Mailing Costs per letter )0 ' $1 per letter Q(J() )0 Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL 1-o lO ' ,, .' , ... ..., . - .. ' . . 1 " . : ' " ' -! ~ it . ' - • " 1 \ \, ~· '\1 .. " .. ·' .i Office Use Only Amount Received:_ _ _ _ Date Paid_ _ _ _ _ Received By:-- - - - - - - - - ­ 8 Zoning Petition Lyman Street and Douglas Avenue Submission for Zoning Determination Table of Contents: P2 - Relevant maps and current zoning P3 - Project background and proposed zoning P4 - Narrative statement; Comprehensive Plan P5 - Narrative statement; Neighborhood Impact P6 - Summary brwarchitects 112 fourth street n.e. charlottesville virginia 22902 434.971.7160 December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 1 Zoning Petition The property is located on the north side of Lyman Street at Surrounding Zoning is generally R-2 along Douglas, Good­ the end of Douglas Avenue adjacent to the existing Belmont man and Graves Street. There is an area with residual M1 Loft PUD and parallel to the CSX railroad tracks. zoning, however, with only one exception properties zoned M1 continue to be residential properties consistent with the surrounding R-2 designation. To the east is the PUD created for the Belmont Lofts. To the west is Downtown Extended Zoning which encompasses the neighboring property for National Optronics. NTS NTS NTS Lyman Street Property BKKW Properties Neighborhood Development Services - downtown N December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 2 Zoning Petition The project involves two parcels. Parcel B5 is a residual part of the Belmont Loft PUD left undeveloped. Parcel X was a formerly un-zoned residual part of CSX properties. It has been designated as an R-1 zoned property as a part of the City’s zoning text amendment identifying R-1 as the default zoning of any discovered un-zoned land. The default R-1 zoning was expected to be rezoned when the property is developed. RAILROAD PARCEL X (UNZONED) PARCEL B5 (PUD) LYMAN STREET DOUGL X B5 AS AVE. N SITE MAP N NTS NTS BKKW Property Boundaries R-2 M1 PUD PROPOSED ZONING December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 3 Zoning Petition 34-157(a)(2) Narrative Statement: applicant’s analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: 34-158 (a) (5) Affordable Housing Data: Housing • There are currently no housing units located on the property. • The project site is 8,612 sf (both parcels combined) The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s vision for Housing states . . . • The typical finished GFA of each residence is 2,585 sf “City neighborhoods will feature a variety of housing types, • One residence may have a finished basement: 791 sqft housing sizes, and incomes all within convenient walking , • Three residences: 8,546 sf finished (w/ one basement) biking or transit distances of enhanced community amenities . (2,585sf x 3 plus one basement 791sf = 8,546 sf) . .” This property on Lyman Street falls well within the walkable • The project is residential with no mixed use. communities of Belmont, the Downtown Mall and work centers along Meade Avenue, contributes to the variety of housing Compatibility with Existing Patterns of Development: types, and provides housing on infill properties which reflect the City’s desire to provide new housing opportunities within The project proposes development at the end of Lyman Street walkable communities. which is seamlessly compatible with surrounding patterns of development. To the south side of Lyman Street are currently Goal 1: Housing’s impact on City Goals and Vision: 4 single family attached residential units. The residences pro­ posed for this project are of a similar scale and density to This development will add housing within an area where this adjacent parcel. The project also provides a transition transportation and energy costs will be mitigated due to the between the Belmont Lofts, the pink warehouse, and the CSX generally pedestrian environment of Belmont and downtown rail lines to the north. Similar, but larger single family homes Charlottesville. have recently been successfully developed just north of the tracks. This project is seen as a residential development zoned Goal 6: This application supports the City’s desire to creatively R2 consistent with the zoning currently existing on Douglas develop new housing on small infill parcels through the use of Avenue and Goodman Street. the Infill SUP which creates three housing units on a property which would be unbuildable without modification. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan designates the area at the end of Douglas, Goodman and Lyman Street as a Business and Technology area. This usage has not developed in this area and remains primarily residential with the surrounding zoning primarily R-2, with a PUD for the Belmont Lofts. The proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan is seeking to clarify the transition between the residential areas of Belmont and the business areas currently located at the National Optronics site. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan shows this property as medium density and primarily residential in nature which corresponds in character to the surrounding neighborhood. December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 4 Zoning Petition 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 5 Zoning Petition Compliance with USBC Provisions: c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; All site development and building development within this The proposed development does not displace any current project will meet the requirements of the USBC. residents or businesses since the lot is currently vacant. Potential Adverse Impacts: d. Discouragement of economic development activites that may provide desirable employment or enlarge The possible adverse impacts of this project are extremely limited. the tax base; The property lies between Lyman Street and the railroad tracks and the development of three homes will increase impervious None. surface at the building footprints. To mitigate the impact of the building footprints we are proposing to develop rain gardens e. Undue density of population or intensity of use for each structure to handle both volume of run-off as well as in relation to the community facilities existing or water quality. All walkways and drives will be constructed available; with pervious pavers and we will meet or exceed any Low Impact Development requirements. All residences are set back None. from Lyman Street 20 feet due to a water line easement. This setback will provide for general landscaping along Lyman f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing Street opposite the existing residences. in the neighborhood; 34-157(a)(4) Narrative Statement identifying and None. discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well as any measures included within the development g. Impact on school population and facilities; plan, to mitigate those impacts. Minimal. a. Traffic or parking congestion; h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation A traffic study done by Line + Grade Civil Engineering shows or historic districs; a minimal increase in vehicular traffic. That study estimates 29 vehicle trips per day for 3 single family homes. On-site None. parking would be provided for each dwelling unit. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; Given the proximity of the site to the railroad, any increase in noise and light pollution will have a minimal impact on the surrounding natural environment. Proposed rain gardens and natural planting will add an additional buffer zone between the units and the street. December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 6 Zoning Petition 34-158(a)(6): other pertinent information (narrative, illustrative, etc.) December 21, 2018 revised February 28, 2019 8 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR AN INFILL SPECIAL USE PERMIT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: March 12, 2019 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP18-00011 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: February 28, 2019 Applicant: BKKW, LLC Applicants Representative: Bruce Wardell Current Property Owner: BKKW, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 0 Lyman Street (Parcel 289.2) and 0 Douglas Avenue (Parcel 358E) (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 58, Parcels 289.2 and 358E Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: 0.197 acres or 8,581.32 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: PUD (Parcel 358E) and R-1 (Parcel 289.2) Tax Status: Parcel is up to date on taxes paid. Completeness: The application contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance Secs. 34-41(d), and 34-158(a) and (b). There are no existing dwelling units on the site, and there are three single-family units proposed by this development. Graphic materials illustrating the context of the project are attached to this staff report (Attachment 1 and 4). The pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was held on December 5, 2018. The community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on February 21, 2019, at the following location: Belmont Arts Collaborative (221 Carlton Road). Background The applicant has submitted a request to rezone the Subject Property to R-2 Residential Zoning (ZM18-00004). The request for infill special use permit will be conditioned on Council’s approval of the rezoning to R-2. The applicant previously put forward a rezoning request (ZM13-00001) to rezone the Subject Property to Downtown Extended, which City Council unanimously voted to deny on August 18, 2014. Applicant’s Request Bruce Wardell of BKKW, LLC (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of an Infill Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located on the north side of Lyman Street with approximately 145 feet of road frontage on Lyman Street as well as frontage on the unimproved right-of-way for Douglas Avenue. The proposal requests to allow for reduced lot size minimum requirements, reduced lot frontage requirements and adjusted setbacks, pursuant to City Code Section 34-165. The applicant’s proposal shows a total of 3 single-family residential lots on the entire development site (0.197 acres). The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 58 Parcels 289.2 and 358E (“Subject Property”). Parcel 289.2 is zoned R-1 Residential pursuant to City Code Section 34-13, having previously been an unzoned parcel. Parcel 358E is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), having been zoned as such in conjunction with the Belmont Lofts PUD. Parcel 358E was part of the parent parcel of the Belmont Lofts PUD plan, but was not designated for any use within the PUD. The site is approximately 0.197 acres or 8,581 square feet. The conceptual site plan, dated December 21, 2018 (Attachment 1) proposes the construction of three single-family residential units that front on Lyman Street. The footprint of these three units would sit entirely on Parcel 289.2, and Parcel 358E would serve as access to the structures as well as planting space. The Comprehensive Plan designates the land use of the Subject Property as Business and Technology. 2 Vicinity Map Context Map 1 3 Context Map 2 – Zoning Classifications KEY - Gray: M-I Manufacturing Industrial; Orange: R-2 – Two-Family, Low-Density Residential; Magenta: Downtown Extended Corridor (DE); Aqua Blue: Planned Unit Development Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Maroon: Business & Technology; Purple: Mixed Use; Yellow: Low Density Residential 4 Application Components: Application Form – Attachment 1 Applicant’s LID Checklist – Attachment 2 Applicant’s Narrative and Supporting Documentation – Attachment 3 Additional Illustrative Materials – Attachment 4 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant an infill special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157 and 34-165. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the Applicant. Sec. 34-157(a)(1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North CSX Railroad None South Two-family Residential PUD East Multifamily Residential PUD West Commercial/Manufacturing DE The subject property is on the border between uses that were developed under old industrial zoning, and longstanding residential uses. Douglas Avenue is residential in nature, ending at the entrance to the multi-family Belmont Lofts. Across Lyman Street from the Subject Property are duplex units that were also built as a part of the Belmont Lofts PUD. To the west are warehouses that have been renovated into commercial space. Continuing along the railroad tracks, there are the commercial buildings at 100 5 and 110 Avon that were built on railroad right-of-way that was relinquished by the railroad. Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the Subject Property is three single-family detached structures. The use is harmonious with the uses along Douglas Avenue. The commercial uses on Avon are accessed solely from Avon Street, so the proposed use would be more in keeping with the lower intensity uses that are present on the streets adjacent to the site. Sec. 34-157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant includes within the project proposal narrative (Attachment 1) a section regarding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan on Page 5 of the document. Staff Analysis: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan’s General Land Use Plan specifies the Subject Property and its surrounding properties as Business and Technology. Business and Technology areas, according to the Comprehensive Plan, “permit small scale offices that cater to start-up businesses and technological development, as well as commercial activity that does not generate the amount of traffic that can be found in more consumer oriented commercial areas.” Staff does not believe the uses conform to the portion of the Business and Technology’s intent to permit “start-up businesses and technological development.” In their consideration of the prior rezoning application on the Subject Property, however, City Council indicated dissatisfaction with the land use designations and zoning in the area, given the prevailing residential uses in the area. One Councilor, according to the minutes, remarked that mixed-use was not appropriate in any form on the site. Staff feels this proposal is more in keeping with the feedback from Council regarding the prior zoning request. Staff also recognizes the overall product of the proposal conforms to other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan listed below. 6 Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 2.1 – Mixed Use, “When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential uses.” Staff Analysis: The special use permit request would increase the number of lots permitted on the property from 2 to 3. The applicant has proposed single-family residences, which is in keeping with the prevailing use of the properties to the south along Douglas Avenue. Objections to the prior rezoning request were centered on the potential for commercial activity that the Downtown Extended zone might permit. This proposal eliminates the possibility of commercial activity on the Subject Property. b. Transportation Goal 1 – Complete Streets Streets That Work Plan The Streets That Work Plan, adopted by City Council September 6, 2016, categorizes Charlottesville’s framework streets into six street typologies, which are based on Complete Street principles. Framework streets are the most direct routes through the city that connect places, neighborhoods, and districts and also serve as emergency vehicle routes. Non-framework streets are considered local streets and make up the majority of the street network. Local streets have no specific associated typology due to the variation of context, right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets. The Streets That Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. Chapter 3: Street Network and Typologies of the Streets That Work Plan include design parameters for the street typologies. Chapter 3 is included as Attachment 6 of this staff report for reference. To access the full Streets That Work Plan, follow this link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h- z/neighborhood-development-services/streets-that-work/streets-that-work-plan. 7 Staff Analysis: The Subject Property fronts on Lyman Street, which is considered a non-framework, Local street. The Streets that Work Plan notes design elements on Local Streets should not exceed the dimensions specified for Neighborhood B streets. A minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear walk zone width for sidewalks is recommended for Neighborhood B streets. Sidewalks and on-street parking are noted as the highest priority street elements within the Neighborhood B typology. The proposed development has included a new 5’ sidewalk along Lyman Street. At the public meeting, one resident noted that the sidewalk on the north side of Lyman that is shown in the proposal would not serve much of a purpose, since it would not connect to any other existing sidewalks at the property’s edge. The south side of Lyman Street has a sidewalk. A waiver of the required sidewalk would need to be approved by City Council. c. Housing Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan’s Housing chapter for which the development is in compliance: Goal 6.3 Encourage the creative uses of innovative housing through available opportunities, such as infill SUP and PUD. Goal 8.5 Promote redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity Staff Analysis: The proposed development of the Subject Property is an infill residential development on a portion of land that cannot, under current zoning, be developed for residential use because of setback regulations. The proposal offers a creative way to expand housing stock on land that would not normally support additional housing units. The site is within walking distance to downtown and the downtown Belmont area. The development of these units would be in a pedestrian friendly area, and the residents of the units would have the option to use modes of transit other than an automobile. 8 Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: a. Housing Goal 3.2 Incorporate affordable units throughout the City, recognizing that locating affordable units throughout the community benefits the whole City. Goal 3.3 Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. Goal 3.4 Encourage creation of new, on-site affordable housing as part of rezoning or residential special use permit applications. Goal 3.5 Consider the range of affordability proposed in rezoning and special use permit applications, with emphasis on provision of affordable housing for those with the greatest need. Staff Analysis: Depending on the gross floor area of the proposed houses, the proposed development may or may not trip the affordable housing unit requirements found in Sec. 34-12 when the residential portion of the project exceeds 1.0 floor-area ratio (FAR). Staff believes that given the need for affordable housing in the City that including affordable units on-site as defined in Sec. 34-12(c) would strengthen the proposal and provide a greater range of housing prices within the development. Staff notes that the infill SUP does not specifically reference a density cap, but merely permits an applicant to adjust the lot requirements within the Subject Property. In this situation, the applicant may be able to incorporate additional accessory dwelling units within the structures to add additional units that may better meet Housing Goal 3. Sec. 34-157(a)(3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will conform to all applicable building code regulations. Building plans are not yet available for review, but the construction of the 9 proposed new structures cannot proceed without separate applications/ review conducted by the City’s Building Code Official. Sec. 34-157(a)(4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Parking: The applicant shows off-street parking for each residence that complies with the minimum parking requirements for single-family detached dwellings. Staff Analysis: Staff confirms that the applicant’s concept plan shows the required off-street parking. Traffic: The applicant includes a “potential adverse traffic impacts” section within their project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) and notes that the development would generate approximately 29 vehicle trips in a day. Staff Analysis: Staff has no concerns regarding the traffic impact of the proposed infill Special Use Permit. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment Staff Analysis: Staff does not anticipate there will be significant noise generated from a residential use. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses Staff Analysis: There are no existing residents or businesses on the Subject Property. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base Staff Analysis: The development would not discourage economic development activities. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available 10 Staff Analysis: The proposed development of three single-family residences does not have an adverse effect on community facilities. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood Staff Analysis: The proposed development would not reduce the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood. g) Impact on school population and facilities Staff Analysis: The proposed development does not project to impact school population in a significant manner. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Staff Analysis: The proposed project will comply with federal, state and local laws. This is ensured through final site plan approval. j) Massing and scale of project The applicant’s application materials shows a typical elevation of the proposed residential units. As measured from Lyman Street, the rooftop of the houses would be around 29 feet above street level, with an additional rooftop structure above that level. The maximum height permitted in the R-2 zone is 35 feet. Staff Analysis: The maximum building height in the R-2 zone will apply to the proposed project. While these houses may be taller than the average house on Douglas Avenue, they will be in line with the heights of the adjacent Belmont Lofts buildings, and in line with the heights of the duplex units across Lyman Street, and the residences in the C&O Row PUD development across the railroad tracks. 11 Sec. 34-157(a)(5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The applicant has a concurrent request to rezone the Subject Property to R-2 Residential. Staff Analysis: Staff believes that a single-family residential use is appropriate within the R-2 zoning district. Sec. 34-157(a)(6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Staff Analysis: The proposed project must comply with standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other applicable city ordinances/regulations prior to final site plan and building permit approvals. Sec. 34-157(a)(7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not located in a design control district. Section 34-165 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed infill SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the Applicant. Sec. 34-165(b)(1) Provision of a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, inclusion of houses of various sizes, to the end that housing within the development will provide a vibrant neighborhood offering a diverse mix of housing styles and sales prices that are affordable to persons and families in various income ranges; Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not located in a design control district. 12 Sec. 34-165(b)(2) Ease of access to and encouragement of the use of public transit services or other alternatives to single-occupancy automobiles (including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems) by persons who live within the development. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is located within walking distance of downtown for any residents that might work in the office buildings nearby. The Subject Property is also within a reasonable walking distance of the Downtown Mall and Downtown Belmont commercial districts. Sec. 34-165(b)(3) Encouragement of pedestrian and vehicular connectivity within a development, and between a development and adjacent neighborhoods, providing opportunities for residents to live near workplaces, shopping opportunities and conveniences. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is across the street from an existing sidewalk on Lyman Street that connects to the greater sidewalk network in the northern portion of the Belmont neighborhood. The location will encourage pedestrian activity. Sec. 34-165(b)(4) Preservation of cultural features, historic structures and scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams, drainage ways and topography, or restoration of such assets and features; Staff Analysis: Staff finds no notable natural features on the Subject Property. The property is currently vacant, with no historic or cultural features. Sec. 34-165(b)(5) Proximity to public parks and public recreational facilities; Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is within walking distance to the Downtown Mall and the amenities in the area surrounding the Mall. The nearest public parking with recreational facilities are Meade Park and Belmont Park. Sec. 34-165(b)(6) Creation of a development that is harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property(s), and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property. Staff Analysis: The proposed development is harmonious with the residential uses on the adjacent properties, as well as Douglas Avenue and Goodman Streets, which are primarily residential in nature. 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on February 21, 2019 (a City Planner attended as a NDS representative). Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • General traffic concern with the geometry of the intersections at either end of Lyman Street and making sure the development does not negatively impact the sight lines. • Several residents appreciated the planting beds in front of the houses, and one resident supports waiving the required sidewalk in front of the units. • The residents in attendance supported the design of the houses as harmonious with the existing character of the street. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS If Planning Commission moves that the application be approved, staff recommends it be approved with the following conditions: 1. City Council approval of the request to rezone the Subject Property to R-2 Residential as submitted in application ZM18-00004. 2. The design, height, and other characteristics of the Development shall remain essentially the same, in all material aspects, as described within the application materials dated December 21, 2018 and revised February 28, 2019 submitted to the City and in connection with SP19-00011 (“Application”). Except as the design details of the development may subsequently be modified to comply with Building Code requirements. 3. The maximum number of units in the development shall be three (3). POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of SP18-00011 subject to: • The two (2) conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of SP18-00011. 14 ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application received December 26, 2018 2) LID Checklist 3) Special Use Permit Project Proposal Narrative received December 26, 2018 Includes Project narrative, Conceptual Plan, Building Elevations, Landscape Plan 4) Additional illustrative materials submitted by the applicant on March 1, 2019 15 --~~~~~~----- I ii§~ ,.Ci~y 1 ~f ~ha:rl~ttesvill1 8 i il I o . .t>J .npp u:ation £Or pec1al Use Perm 0 $..:_ lZ'~ f t: ~rGJNIA .. "\: »---r P -oJ.ect - - _ N_a m -_ _ e_: ___ L - ' --t~==~ \ '\" \ ===-~~- ---==(-. .'==1 ~=,==~=- = =u-. ._-_+t> 1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 'to~\~ , Tt:-<::.hV\d 04 i Is this an amendment to an existing SUP?~ o If "yes", provide the SUP#:_ _ _ __ _ __ Applicant: _ _.....;;b;....___ ~ \.-.. w __-_L..;;..L.;....C;.;;....__ . ­ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ Address: _ __.:.;ll;...= '2.::._-= 4--~ ~ --\-J..£__,,'---_:=;:__ · ____;;: b~_;___\o_~_t.;N_~_U_e._,__\l-=-~ 1 -=------1.,Z- ____"'io z... Phone: "\-)t..f ·qi l· 1.l(... o Email: ~..,.-4-d\ (9 91~ ~ c::urc.\...-.t-.\-c.c.+..s • LC"»-l Applicant's Role in the Development (check one): G Owner's Agent Designer Contract Purchaser Owner of Record: b~ \....\... t.­ Address: \\'L 411:. ~ N6.. , L'.J-)GV\.\.oU.C..'o.v\ l~ . \/,c..._ 22./1.0Z­ Phone: 4~'1~ 9.1 .\-1.ll.. o Email: \::>t...:>a...v-~·1,000 ft. br ;o: 50% of the total par.king and driveway surface area. surface area. Shared parking (must have legally binding agreement) that eliminates >30% 5 points or 1 point for each of on-site parking required. 6% of parking surface elimi­ nated . Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manual specifications to ensure 8 points adequate capture of roof runoff (e.g. cisterns, dry wells, rain gardens) Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Biofilter surface ar- 8 points or 1 point for each ea must be ;o: 5% of impervious drainage area. 10% of site treated. 2 Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface area for each lot ;o: 200 ft. • 8 points or 1 point for each 10% of lots treated. Designed/constructed swales. Percent of site treated must exceed 80%, 8 points or 1 point for each achieve non-erosive velocities, and able to convey peak discharge from 10 10% of site treated. year storm. Manufactured sand filters, filter vaults (must provide filtering rather than 8 points or 1 point for each just hydrodynamic). Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and 10% of site treated. volume for water quality treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. Green rooftop to treat ;o: 50% of roof area 8 points Other LID practices as approved by NOS Engineer. TBD, not to exceed 8 points Off-site contribution to project in City's water quality management plan. 5 points This measure to be considered when on site constraints (space, environ­ mentally sensitive areas, hazards) limit application of LID measures. Re­ quires pre-approval by NDS Director. Total Points ?1/)f. Print ~U- \Z-. W'MJ-0~ Date ------­ 8 Infill Special Use Permit Application Lyman Street and Douglas Avenue Submission for Infill Special Use Permit Table of Contents: P2 - Conceptual Site Plan and Traffic Study by Line+ Grade Civil Engineering P3 - Low-impact development methods worksheet P4 - Building mass diagram and elevations P5 - Affordable housing data P6 - Project context P7 ­ Narrative statement; Comprehensive Pion PS - Narrative statement; USBC provisions P9 - Narrative statement; Neighborhood impact Pl 0 - Summary brwarchitects 112 fourth street ne charlottesville virginia 22902 434.971.7160 December 21, 2018 1 Infill Special Use Permit Application wj: Cl : c:t:! a:: .. ,. ... \ J; l!J + .~ w z --11 © SITEPLAN ~OGRESS PRINT NOTFOR CONSTRUCTION I H[ WO•ll< OF l l li[• 0/IAl) t C2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN BY LINE+ GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING WEEKDAY TRAFFIC IITE TRIP GENERATION: VEHICLES PEAKHOUR I AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR I use Descrtptlon ITECODE I UNITS I TRIPS/UNIT I QlY I REDLJCnON• PER DAY FACTOR I % IN I % OUT I IN I OUT I TOTAL TRIPS %IN I %OUT I IN I OUT I TOTAL TRIPS Single !=amity Homes 210 I 1 Dwelling Uni t~ 9.57 I I 3.oo 29 1.00 J37%f63%l1f 2 1 3 63% I 37% I 2 I 1 I 3 TOTALS: 29 I 1 I 2 I 3 I 2 I 1 I 3 *Note: all land uses in the 800 and 900 series are entitled to a passby trip reductmn of 60% 1f less than 50,000 SF or a 40% reductmn tf greater than or equal to 50.000 SF. TRAFFIC STUDY BY LINE+ GRADE CIVIL ENGINEERING ~i RCHITECTS December 21, 2018 ~ 2 Infill Special Use Permit Application Project Name: Lyman Street LID Checklist Points LID Measure Total Points 5 points or 1 point for Compensatory Plantings (see city buffer mitigation -- each 18% of the total manual). 90% ofrestorable stream buffers acreage restored. 7 points or 1 point for Pervious pavers for parking and driveways with each 7% of parking stone reservoir for storage of 0.5 inches ofrainfall and driveway surface per impervious drainage area. Surface area must 7 area be >1,ooo ft.2 or;?: 50% of the total parking and driveway surface area. 5 points or 1 point for Shared parking (must have legally binding each 6% of parking agreement) that eliminates > 30% of on-site -- surface area parking required. eliminated. 8 points Impervious Disconnection. Follow design manual -- specifications to ensure adequate capture of roof runoff. (e.g. cisterns, dry wells, rain gardens). 8 points or 1 point for Bioretention. Percent of site treated must exceed -- each 10% of site 80%. Biofilter surface area must be;?: 5% of treated. impervious drainage area. 8 points or 1 point for Rain gardens. All lots, rain garden surface area for 8 each 10% oflots each lot;?: 200 ft. 2. treated 8 points or 1 point for Designed/ constructed swales. Percent of site each 10% of site treated must exceed 80%, achieve non-erosive -- treated velocities, and able to convey peak discharge from 10-year storm. 8 points or 1 point for Manufactured sand filters, filter vaults (must each 10% of site provide filtering rather than just hydrodynamic). -- treated Percent of site treated must exceed 80%. Sizing and volume for water quality treatment based on manufacturer's criteria. 8 points Green rooftop to treat ;?: 50% of roof area. -- TBD, not to exceed 8 Other LID practices as approved by NDS engineer. points 5 points Off-site contribution to project in city's water quality management plan. This measure to be considered when on site constraints (space, -- environmentally sensitive areas, hazards) limit application of LID measures. Requires preapproval by NDS director. TOTAL POINTS (must eQ ual 10 or more) 15 Submitted by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ (Name of applicant) Approved by: _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ (date) _ _ __ (City Engineer) ~:S.:R . .' 1 RCHITECTS December 21, 2018 ~ 3 Infill Special Use Permit Application BUILDING MASS DIAGRAM NTS 34-158(a)(4): a building massing diagram, and building elevations -.i ---~-~ -­ --­ ~'li'.f& ''· ·.k\ ..;, 11 "HF"H I ~:," .filtu!ltikru~~ ~ - ...". LEll-;,~ BUILDING ELEVATIONS NTS R C H I T E: C T S December 21, 2018 4 Infill Special Use Permit Application 34-157(a)(2) Narrative Statement: applicant's Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: analysis of conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Housing 34-158 (a) (5) Affordable Housing Data: The 2013 Comprehensive Plan's vision for Housing states • There are currently no housing units located on the ... "City neighborhoods will Feature a variety of housing property. types, housing sizes, and incomes all within convenient • The project GFA is 8612.76 (both parcels combined): walking, biking or transit distances of enhanced community 8612.76 sf amenities . . ."This property on Lyman Street falls well within • The GFA of each residence is 2280 sf finished the walkable communities of Belmont, the Downtown Mall • Three residences: 6840 sf finished; and work centers along Meade Avenue, contributes to • The project is residential with no mixed use. the variety of housing types, and provides housing on infill properties which renect the City's desire to provide new Compatibility with Existing Patterns of housing opportunities within walkable communities. Development: Goal 1: Housing's impact on City Goals and Vision: The project proposes development at the end of Lyman Street which is seamlessly compatible with surrounding This development will add housing within an area where patterns of development. To the south side of Lyman Street transportation and energy costs will be mitigated due are currently 4 single family attached residential units. to the generally pedestrian environment of Belmont and The residences proposed for this project are of a similar downtown Charlottesville. scale and density to this adjacent parcel. The project also provides a transition between the Belmont Lofts, the pink Goal 6: This application supports the City's desire to warehouse, and the CSX rail lines to the north. Similar, but creatively develop new housing on small infill parcels larger single Family homes have recently been successfully through the use of the Infill SUP which creates three housing developed just north of the tracks. This project is seen units on a property which would be unbuildable without as a residential development zoned R2 consistent with modification. the zoning currently existing on Douglas Avenue and Goodman Street. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan designates the area at the end of Douglas, Goodman and Lyman Street as a Business and Technology area. This usage has not developed in this area and remains primarily residential with the surrounding zoning primarily R-2, with a PUD for the Belmont Lofts. The proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan is seeking to clarify the transition between the residential areas of Belmont and the business areas currently located at the National Optronics site. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan shows this property as medium density and primarily residential in nature which corresponds in character to the surrounding neighborhood. December 21, 2018 5 Infill Special Use Permit Application 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Land Use Low Density Reside~tial - Park or Preserved Open Space - High Density Residential - Public or Semi-Public - Neighborhood Commercial ~ .. Denotes property not subject to the - Mixed Use · · City of Charlottesville's municipal authority - Business and Technology ~ ~l C H IT EC TS December 21, 2018 ~ 6 Infill Special Use Permit Application Compliance with USBC Provisions: gardens and natural planting will add an additional buffer zone between the units and the street. All site development and building development within this c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; project will meet the requirements of the USBC. The proposed development does not displace any current Potential Adverse Impacts: residents or businesses since the lot is currently vacant. The possible adverse impacts of this project are extremely d. Discouragement of economic development limited. The property lies between Lyman Street and the activites that may provide desirable employment railroad tracks and the development of three homes will or enlarge the tax base; increase impervious surface at the building footprints. To mitigate the impact of the building footprints we are None. proposing to develop rain gardens for each structure to handle both volume of run-off as well as water quality. e. Undue density of population or intensity of use All walkways and drives will be constructed with pervious in relation to the community facilities existing or pavers and we will meet or exceed any Low Impact available; Development requirements. All residences are set back from Lyman Street 20 feet due to a water line easement. None. This setback will provide for general landscaping along Lyman Street opposite the existing residences. f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood; 34-157(a)(4) Narrative Statement identifying and discussing any potential adverse impacts, as well None. as any measures included within the development plan, to mitigate those impacts. g. Impact on school population and facilities; a. Traffic or parking congestion; Minimal. A traffic study done by Line+ Grade Civil Engineering h. Destruction of or encroachment upon shows a minimal increase in vehicular traffic. That study conservation or historic districs; estimates 29 vehicle trips per day for 3 single family homes. On-site parking would be provided for each None. dwelling unit. b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment; Given the proximity of the site to the railroad, any increase in noise and light pollution will have a minimal impact on the surrounding natural environment. Proposed rain December 21 , 2018 7 Infill Special Use Permit Application Existing and Proposed Residences December 21, 2018 8 COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 N NTS BRW Property AERIAL VIEW COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: B5 X Infill SUP NTS BRW Property Boundaries N N NTS ZONING COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 © 2018 - LINE+GRADE, LLC STORMWATER OUTFALL WITH LEVEL SPREADER SANITARY FFE=446.5 MANHOLE FFE=448.5 PERMEABLE WALK FFE=447.5 TO RESIDENCE 34'R CITY STANDARD CG-2 CORPORATION STOP WITH RAINGARDEN (250 SF) 3 4 INCH RESIDENTIAL WATERMETER PERMEABLE WALK TO RESIDENCE LAWN RELOCATED OVERHEAD POWERLINE LAWN 18'R CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY LYMAN STREET PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY CITY STANDARD ENTRANCE (TYP) CITY STANDARD CG-2 STORMWATER SITE PLAN PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY CONVEYANCE TO OUTFALL PROPOSED OVHD CORPORATION STOP WITH 3 POWERPOLE 4 INCH RESIDENTIAL WATERMETER CORPORATION STOP WITH 3 4 INCH RESIDENTIAL WATERMETER SANITARY CONNECTION TO CITY SYSTEM N SITE PLAN 1 1" = 10' 10 20 12/21/2018 APPROVED SUBMISSION NO. 0 PROJECT 1812100 T H E W O R K O F L I N E + G R A D E C2.0 SITE PLAN COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 EXTERIOR RENDERINGS COMMUNITY REZONING MEETING 112 4th Street Charlottesville, VA Lyman Street, Belmont February 21, 2019 22902 434.971.7160 City of Charlottesville MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Missy Creasy, Assistant Director of Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) DATE: March 13, 2019 SUBJECT: Public hearing for proposed FY 2019-2020 CDBG and HOME Budget Allocations for the Annual Plan of the Consolidated Plan As part of the CDBG public participation process, the Planning Commission must provide recommendations to City Council on all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funding recommendations. Attached you will find the proposed allocations for FY 19-20 CDBG and HOME programs. These recommendations are based on CDBG Task Force recommendations for Housing and Public Service activities, the Strategic Action Team for Economic Development activities, and the Belmont Priority Neighborhood Task Force. Also attached you will find copies of meeting minutes where these recommendations were made. Other attachments include a memo of explanation and a list of all the projects reviewed as a result of the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Following the public hearing, staff is asking for a recommendation to City Council concerning the CDBG and HOME budget allocations. This will include the approval of funds to be reprogrammed. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Missy Creasy at 970-3189 or creasym@charlottesville.org. Cc: City Council Mike Murphy, Interim City Manager Alexander Ikefuna, Director of NDS CDBG Task Force City of Charlottesville MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Missy Creasy, Assistant Director of Neighborhood Development Services (NDS) DATE: March 12, 2019 SUBJECT: Proposed FY 2019-2020 CDBG and HOME Budget Allocations CDBG and HOME Project Recommendations for FY 2019-2020: The CDBG program total has an estimated $408,417 for the 2019-2020 program year. The CDBG grand total reflects the $408,417 Entitlement (EN) Grant, $1,900.82 in Reprogramming, and $0 in previous years’ entitlement available after program income has been applied. The HOME total consists of an estimated $76,000 which is the City’s portion of the Consortium’s appropriation, in addition to $19,000 for the City’s 25% required match, $0 in Reprogramming and $28,379 in program income. Minutes from the meetings are attached which outline the recommendations made. It is important to note that all projects went through an extensive review by the CDBG/HOME Task Force as a result of an RFP process. Priority Neighborhood – The FY 2019-2020 Priority Neighborhood is Ridge Street (for the first cycle), however, staff recommends that Planning Commission make a recommendation to Council to designate Belmont as the Priority Neighborhood for FY 19-20 (for the second continuous year). Per the Belmont Priority Neighborhood Task Force recommendations, the first priority project is a sidewalk infill construction project on Franklin Street. Per project estimates, the project may cost an estimated $300,000 for construction and engineering. In order to prevent phasing the project over two to three years, which will increase the cost of the project, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Belmont for a continuous round of funding for FY 19-20 and then designate Ridge Street as the 20-21, and 21-22 Priority Neighborhood. There are several upcoming projects surrounding Franklin Street that will impact traffic and safety conditions within the neighborhood. Economic Development – Council set aside FY 19-20 CDBG funding for Economic Development Activities. Members of the Strategic Action Team reviewed applications for Economic Development and made a recommendation. Funds are proposed to be used to provide scholarships to assist 20 entrepreneurs launch their own micro-enterprises through technical assistance. Public Service Programs – The CDBG/HOME Task Force has recommended several public service programs. Programs were evaluated based on Council’s priorities for affordable housing (priority for persons who are 0-50 percent AMI), support for the homelessness and those at risk of homelessness, workforce development (support for programs that aid in self-sufficiency, including but not limited to quality childcare), microenterprise assistance, and mental health and substance abuse services. Programs were also evaluated based upon metrics included in the RFP evaluation scoring rubric. Funding will enable the organizations to provide increased levels of service to the community. Estimated benefits include workforce development training for seven beneficiaries; basic literacy instruction for 20 beneficiaries; and increased capacity of a coordinated entry system for homeless services which will benefit 41 homeless persons. Administration and Planning: To pay for the costs of staff working with CDBG projects, citizen participation, and other costs directly related to CDBG funds, $81,683 is budgeted. HOME Funds: The CDBG/HOME Task Force recommended funding to programs that support homeowner rehabilitation. Estimated benefits include three homeowner rehabilitations/three preserved units. Program Income/Reprogramming: For FY 2019-2020, the City has $0 in previous CDBG EN that has been made available through the application of received Program Income (PI) to be circulated back into the CDBG budget. The City has $28,379 in HOME available after PI was applied to be circulated back into the HOME budget. There are also completed projects that have remaining funds to be reprogrammed amounting to $1,900.82 CDBG and $0 HOME. These are outlined in the attached materials. Adjusting for Actual Entitlement Amount: Because actual entitlement amounts are not known at this time, it is recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro­ rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. Proposed Motion I move to recommend approval of the proposed FY 19-20 CDBG and HOME budgets to City Council as presented in this report. When the actual entitlement amount is received, it is recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro-rated percentage of actual entitlement. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. In addition, it is recommended that Council designate the Belmont Neighborhood as the priority neighborhood for FY19-20 to allow for cost-effective completion of the project selected and designate the Ridge Street Neighborhood for FY 20-21 and FY 21-22. Attachments: Proposed FY 19-20 CDBG and HOME budgets Funds to be reprogrammed FY 19-20 List of RFPs received CDBG/HOME Task Force/SAT Minutes and Scores 2019-2020 CDBG and HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASK FORCE and SAT: 1/16/19 and 2/7/19 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL: A. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Belmont or Ridge Street $254,872 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Scholarships $12,500 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL: $12,500 C. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS A. Literacy Volunteers – Basic Literacy Instruction $10,000 B. OED GO Utilities $21,262 C. TJACH – Coordinated Entry System $30,000 SOCIAL PROGRAMS TOTAL: $61,262 (15% EN) D. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING: A. Admin and Planning $81,683 (20% EN) GRAND TOTAL: $412,217.82 ESTIMATED NEW ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $410,317 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $0.00 REPROGRAMMING: $1,900.82 * Funding includes reprogrammed funds _______________________________________________________________________ 2019-2020 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A. AHIP – Homeowner Rehab $76,000* TOTAL: $123,379 ENTITLEMENT AMOUNT: $76,000 ESTIMATED EN AVAILABLE AFTER PI APPLIED: $28,379 REPROGRAMMING: $0.00 LOCAL MATCH: $19,000 * Includes estimated EN available after program income applied APPROPRIATION AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ACCOUNT Reprogramming of Funds for FY 19-20 WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the appropriation of certain sums of federal grant receipts to specific accounts in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and WHEREAS, it now appears that these funds have not been spent and need to be reprogrammed, and therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that appropriations made to the following expenditure accounts in the CDBG fund are hereby reduced or increased by the respective amounts shown, and the balance accumulated in the Fund as a result of these adjustments is hereby reappropriated to the respective accounts shown as follows: Program Account Code Purpose Proposed Proposed Proposed Year Revised Revised Revised Reduction Addition Appropriation 16-17 P-00001-05-18 Seedplanters $25.82 17-18 P-00001-05-20 Community Investment $1,875.00 Collaborative 19-20 Priority Neighborhood $1,900.82 $1,900.82 TOTALS: $1,900.82 $1,900.82 $1,900.82 ** At the time of the Planning Commission Meeting, it is too soon to know if there will be any CDBG FY 18-19 funds to be reprogrammed. All funds identified will be included in the Council materials. CDBG & HOME RFP SUBMISSIONS - FY 2019-2020 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Internship Program Residents Brandon Collins $24,000 City of Charlottesville Office of Economic GO Public Works Development Hollie Lee $24,400 Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle Ellen Osborne Basic Literacy Instruction $10,000 Piedmont Housing Alliance Karen Klick Renter Resource Program $18,077 Coordinated Entry System Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless Anthony Haro $30,000 PACE Secure Seniors Program Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless Anthony Haro $15,000 Total Amount of Requests $97,477 Total Projected Budget $61,200 Request Overage $36,277 Funding Program Description Organization, (Program Title) Project Contact Requested AHIP Corey Demcheck Homeowner Rehabs $76,000 Total Amount of Requests $76,000 Total Projected Budget $76,000 Request Overage $0 CDBG TASK FORCE Minutes Second Floor Conference Room, City Hall Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:00pm – 1:00pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Taneia Dowell X Howard Evergreen X Kathy Johnson Harris X Joy Johnson X Sherry Kraft X Kelly Logan X Sarah Malpass X Kelsey Cox X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 12:00pm. HOME Funding Allocation  Staff mentioned that $76,000 in HOME entitlement funds are available for HOME applicants. The only applicant was AHIP.  On a motion by Sherry Kraft (SK), seconded by Taneia Dowell (TD), the CDBG/HOME Task Force unanimously approved the HOME funding recommendations as follows: Fund AHIP at $76,000 (entitlement). Because actual entitlement amounts for HOME are not known at this time, the Task Force recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro‐ rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. Discussion related to TJACH’s Application Scoring for the Priority Neighborhood Criteria  Staff mentioned that there was a need for discussion related to both of TJACH’s applications regarding how to score the priority neighborhood response as it relates to the homeless population. There were inconsistencies in the Task Force scores.  There was discussion about giving TJACH a three because serving the homeless population is a priority for the City the same way that the priority neighborhood is a priority.  Staff mentioned that from the application it appears as though TJACH does not go out into the community and recruit homeless persons, rather persons needing services come to them.  One member mentioned that in this case the Salvation Army is located in Ridge Street and would be a way in which persons located in Ridge Street are served by TJACH.  There was discussion about applicants not being penalized because the question does not fit the applicant and/or the services provided. One member responded and mentioned that 1 applicants aren’t being penalized, however it is an opportunity to gain bonus points for responding appropriately to the question.  Another member mentioned that we have the question so that funds can be targeted in the priority neighborhood similar to previous priority neighborhoods such as 10th & Page and that all applications meet Council Priorities.  There was discussion about it being unfair to give points to TJACH other than a zero. Staff suggested that the Task Force focus on the response to the application question. One member mentioned that the application question gives applicants the opportunity to address the priority neighborhood.  There was discussion about separating question #21 in the future so that the question is clear.  It was mentioned that the Task Force should focus on the question and the response and utilize what is provided in the response to come to a consensus about the score. A task member urged the group that applicants are not being penalized, rather applicants have the opportunity to score additional points for answering the question.  Staff mentioned that TJACH potentially serves clients or makes/receives referrals to/from the Salvation Army and they failed to mention it in their application and perhaps if they had made the connection to the Salvation Army, there would have been an opportunity for points in the priority neighborhood category.  Staff reminded the Task Force that they agreed to score the proposals based solely on the responses and agreed to be objective in the scoring.  A member agreed that the Task Force has to be objective and have to be fair with the scoring and that there was an opportunity to address the question. Another member agreed.  The group came to a consensus that both TJACH applications would be provided a zero for the priority neighborhood score because it was not addressed in the proposal response.  The group agreed to discuss the priority neighborhood proposal question in the future. CDBG Funding Application Recommendation  Staff shared the average scores for each proposal.  Per a question asked by a Task Force member, staff explained that all other grants provided to applicants from the City’s Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund is included in the staff summary (but does not include funds received from Agency Budget Review Team or other sources).  There was discussion about whether the Task Force wanted to fully funding agencies or spread funding amongst several applicants. Staff provided clarification on which agencies mentioned that they could operate their projects without receiving full funding.  The group mentioned that some applicants are requesting funding to fund staff hours and reductions in funding would reduce the number of beneficiaries and/or the number of staff hours.  The group agreed to fully fund Literacy Volunteers as they were the top scorer.  One member mentioned that that it makes sense to support the TJACH Coordinated Entry System project a second year, however, that long‐term sustainability of supporting the position outside of CDBG is something that they should be aware of.  There was discussion about why the task force is taking time to score applications if the scores aren’t going to be used as the basis for making funding decisions. One member mentioned that the only reason why there should be room to consider discussions regarding funding amounts relative to scores is if there are other applicants that can’t operate a program without full funding (only opportunity for subjectivity). Another member mentioned that the group should prioritize funding 2 amounts based upon the score and have the option to alter the amounts if necessary. Another member mentioned that the scoring tool does not take into account the applications as a whole and the needs that the City has as a whole. A rubric will never be able to serve as the only decision‐maker for funding allocation decisions.  There was discussion regarding whether or not to fully fund the next top scorer which is TJACH at $30,000. There was discussion about being okay with fully funding TJACH but making sure that they are aware that CDBG shouldn’t be used as their only funding source and that they should build a sustainable amount of funds to fund the position over the next 10 years.  Discussion continued on whether to fully fund TJACH and how to fund OED and/or PHAR as another option.  One member thought PHAR’s application was a lot better than the previous application and that a lot of improvements were made. The member mentioned that PHAR is working on empowerment of leaders and the work being done by PHAR will impact redevelopment of public housing. The benefit is not just immediate but PHAR will be seeking to make the housing fit the needs of the community long‐term. PHAR’s application has a broader impact and it stood out as being unique in terms of the moment the City is in right now as it pertains to affordable housing. Others thought that the application wasn’t strong at all and that the application didn’t answer the questions clearly related to how the narrative answered Council priority/goal of affordable housing options and evaluation methods. The group discussed how there were there were stronger applications such as literacy volunteers, TJACH, and OED.  One member suggested that the Task Force make a recommendation to fund the three top scorers and split funding amongst the second and third top scorers. The Task Force members agreed on the suggestion.  The group agreed to that TJACH should be fully funded due to the work that was put into the application.  Staff mentioned that OED informed staff that they can still carry out program without being fully funded. On a motion by HE, seconded by KC, the CDBG/HOME Task Force unanimously approved the CDBG funding recommendations as follows:  Fund Literacy Volunteers at $10,000; and  Fund TJACH at $30,000; and  Fund OED GO Public Works at $21,200.  Because actual entitlement amounts for CDBG are not known at this time, the Task Force recommended that all recommendations are increased/reduced at the same pro‐rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. Group mentioned that they liked the new scoring rubric and the rubric went along with the application. The meeting adjourned at 1:00pm. 3 STRATEGIC ACTION TEAM (SAT) Minutes Neighborhood Development Services Conference Room, City Hall Thursday, February 7, 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm Attendance: Task Force Members Present Absent Gretchen Ellis X Diane Kuknyo X Kelly Logan X Sue Moffett X Tierra Howard (staff) X Others: The meeting began at 11:00am. Discussion of Proposals  The SAT members discussed both economic development applications. Member felt that the Office of Economic Development’s (OED) application provided insufficient evidence of community need and provided no evidence‐based information.  Members mentioned that the OED’s application was well‐written, however, businesses need capital and funds to run a business. One member felt like that application was lacking an explanation of or connection to capital and that the program may set businesses up for failure due to the lack of a connection to capital. One member mentioned that the funding request will not directly serve beneficiaries, rather grant funds would be allocated to staff time. Another member mentioned that the program’s measure of success is tied to persons completing the program and not to starting a business. The application also lacked research on the specific model that would be implemented.  One member questioned if OED’s proposal was the best model and what factors would determine if people were ready for CIC. It appeared as though the only criteria was income and not readiness.  One member felt as though OED needed to provide evidence that entrepreneurship is a way out of poverty.  The group discussed wanting to fully fund the Community Investment Collaborative (CIC) application, however, they were concerned about lack of outreach and engagement in the priority neighborhood (Ridge Street). The members also discussed that their application had a low score based upon the points available.  One member noted that they scored CIC low on their outreach strategy and organizational capacity sections.  The SAT unanimously agreed to provide a funding recommendation to fully fund CIC at their $12,500 request and to not fund OED’s request. Because actual entitlement amounts for CDBG are not known, the SAT recommended that all recommendations be increased/reduced at the same pro‐rated percentage of actual entitlement to be estimated. No agency will increase more than their initial funding request. 1 The meeting adjourned at 11:30pm. 2 Applicant Average Score Funding Request TF Funding Recommendations Literacy Volunteers 38.7 $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 TJACH 36.3 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 OED 35.2 $ 25,400.00 $ 21,200.00 PHAR 34.3 $ 24,000.00 TJACH Seniors 33.2 $ 15,000.00 PHA 27.8 $ 18,077.00 $ 61,200.00 Funds Available 61,200 Funds Leftover $ ‐ AHIP 37 76,000 76,000 EN Available Description Goal Need Outcomes Strategies Implement Evaluation Demography Financial Collaboration Engagement PN Org Capacity Budget Sum Average Score AHIP HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 SM 3 3 3 3 1 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 37 KL 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 39 KC 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 1 30 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 40 TD 3 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 34 222 37 PHAR HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 40 SM 3 3 3 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 36 KL 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 19 KC 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 37 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 38 TD 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 36 206 34.33333333 OED HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 37 SM 3 3 3 3 1 0 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 35 KL 3 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 33 KC 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 35 SK 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 37 TD 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 3 34 211 35.16666667 LIT VOL HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 42 SM 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 39 KL 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 38 KC 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 37 SK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 40 TD 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 36 232 38.66666667 PHA HE 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 24 SM 3 3 2 2 1 0 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 30 KL 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 23 KC 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 27 SK 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 30 TD 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 33 167 27.83333333 TJACH HE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 39 SM 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 36 KL 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 2 37 KC 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 0 3 2 34 SK 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 39 TD 3 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 0 3 2 33 218 36.33333333 TJACH SENIORS HE 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 2 37 SM 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3 2 3 3 0 3 3 33 KL 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 0 3 1 29 KC 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 0 3 3 33 SK 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 0 3 2 33 TD 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 0 3 2 32 197 32.83333333 CIC SM 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 37 GE 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 3 36 DK 1 2 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 26 KL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 2 2 36 135 33.75 OED SM 2 3 2 2 1 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 22 GE 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 31 DK 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 28 KL 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 36 117 29.25 Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization POB 1505, 401 E. Water St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.tjpdc.org (434) 979-7310 phone ● info@tjpdc.org email Memorandum To: City of Charlottesville, Planning Commission From: Jakob zumFelde, Transportation Planner Date: March 1, 2019 Reference: MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2045 Purpose: The Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO (CA-MPO) is working to update the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), for its 5-year update. MPO staff is presenting the Planning Commission with a status update on the LRTP planning process and soliciting input. Background: The CA-MPO is the official forum for cooperative transportation decision-making for the metropolitan area. It is federally designated to consider regional long-range transportation projects that receive federal funds. One of the core responsibilities of the MPO is developing and maintaining the LRTP. The LRTP guides the region in creating a more efficient, responsive and environmentally-sensitive transportation system over the next 20+ years. The plan examines regional transportation trends/issues and offers a list of specific projects for addressing the region’s mobility needs. The focus of the plan is on the regional transportation network, which provides connectivity through and around the for region for people goods and services. The MPO Policy Board, which includes representatives from the Charlottesville City Council and Albemarle Board of Supervisors, approved the most recent plan in May 2014. The updated plan must be completed and approved by the Policy Board by May of 2019. An overview of the LRTP process was presented to the Planning Commission in October 2018. Summary: MPO staff have nearly completed the planning process and have identified projects for inclusion in the final constrained and vision project lists. These lists have been provided as an attachment. Action Items: This discussion is to inform the Planning Commission of the ongoing planning process and solicit input from the Commission. If there are any questions or comments, please visit the plan website at http://campo.tjpdc.org/process-documents/lrtp/ or contact Jakob zumFelde at jzumfelde@tjpdc.org. Roadway Constrained (Draft) Estimated Cost (CY2020) $ Draft Proposed Constrained Roadway/Multimodal Project List Millions Actions Project Constrained Total calculated Project Name Jurisdiction Notes ID Amount project Cost R3‐a Hydraulic and US 29 Intersection $ 15.9 $ 79.1 63.2 million to intersection list R3‐b Angus Rd Hillsdale Extension 250 Ramp Relocation $ 50.5 $ 50.5 Hydraulic 29 project divided into R3‐c District Ave Roundabout Both $ 8.4 8.4 million to intersection list individual parts for constraining R3‐d Hillsdale Roundabout $ 10.7 10.7 million to intersection list R3‐e Zan Road area improvements $ 39.3 $ 39.3 Funded in Smart Scale III. shifted to Six R6 West Main Street multimodal Charlottesville $ 11.9 $ 11.9 Year Plan R18 Hillsdale Drive to Rio Albemarle $ 9.3 $ 9.3 TOTAL $ 126.9 Estimated roadway constrained amount $ 126.9 Difference $ 0.0 Draft Roadway Project Vision List LRTP Project Name Jurisdiction Project ID R2 250 Shadwell Albemarle R4 Bypass/Fontaine Albemarle R5 US‐250 Free Bridge Widening Both R7 Route 20 multimodal Albemarle R8 Rio Road multimodal Albemarle R9 Fifth/Ridge/McIntire multimodal Charlottesville R10 Avon Street multimodal Both R11 Berkmar Drive Extension Albemarle R12 Sunset/Fontaine connector Albemarle R13 Eastern Ave connector Albemarle R14 Old Lynchburg multimodal Albemarle R15 Ivy Road East multimodal Albemarle R16 I‐64 truck lanes Albemarle R17 Ivy Road West multimodal Albemarle R19 South Pantops Drive Bridge Both R20 Free Bridge Area Capacity Study Both C1 Elliot Avenue between Ridge Street and Avon Street Charlottesville C2 Preston Avenue between 10th Street NW and McIntire Road Charlottesville C3 10th Street NW between Wertland Street and Preston Avenue Charlottesville C4 East High Street between 9th Street and Locust Avenue Charlottesville Intersection Constrained List (Draft) Constrained Total calculated Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction Notes Action Amount^ project Cost R3‐a Hydraulic and US 29 Intersection 63.2 79.1 15.9 million included in roadways Hydraulic 29 project divided R3‐c District Ave Roundabout Both 8.4 8.4 8.4 million to intersection List into individual parts for R3‐d Hillsdale Roundabout 10.7 10.7 10.7 million to intersection List constraining TOTAL 82.3 Estimated intersection constrained amount 82.3 Difference 0.0 ^Cost in Millions $, 2020 year Draft Intersection Project Vision List Locality Street 1 Street 2 Street Other Source Albemarle Route 250 Crozet Avenue Albemarle Albemarle Route 250 Burnley Station Rd Albemarle Albemarle Route 250 West Owensville Road Tilman Road Albemarle Albemarle Route 29 Woodbrook Drive Albemarle Albemarle Route 20 Route 53 Albemarle Albemarle Route 250 Bypass Hydraulic Road Interchange Albemarle/MPO Charlottesville Preston Avenue 10th Street NW City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Preston Avenue Grady Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Preston Avenue 9th Street NW Rose Hill Drive City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Fontaine Avenue Maury Avenue Jefferson Park Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Roosevelt Brown Boulevard Cherry Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Cherry Avenue 6th Street SW City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Cherry Avenue Ridge Street 5th Street, Elliot Ave City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Elliot Avenue Burnet Way Burnet Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 5th Street SW Oak Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 4th Street SW Dice Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Ridge Street Oak Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Monticello Avenue Ridge Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 6th Street SE Monticello Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville Avon Street Monticello Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 9th Street 11th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 9th Street Grove Avenue City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 11th Street NE Little High Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 10th Street NE Little High Street City of Charlottesville Charlottesville East High Street 8th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville East High Street 7th Street NE City of Charlottesville Charlottesville 5th Street SE Elliot Avenue City of Charlottesville Albemarle Route 250 Stoney Point Road STARS Albemarle Rio Road Pen Park Ln STARS Albemarle Route 20 Key West Dr STARS Albemarle Ivy Road Ivy Depot Road STARS Albemarle Route 53 Milton Rd STARS Albemarle Route 250 State Farm Blvd STARS Charlottesville Elliot Avenue Monticello Avenue STARS Albemarle Route 29 Westfield Rd STARS Albemarle Old Lynchburg Road 5th Street STARS Albemarle Route 29 Polo Grounds Road STARS Albemarle Route 250 Louisa Road STARS Albemarle Route 29 Lewis and Clark Dr STARS Albemarle Route 250 Route 240 STARS Albemarle Rio Oldbrook Northfield STARS Charlottesville Main Street 14th Street STARS Draft List of Bridge Projects VDOT Structure Number Locality Street Crossing Condition 1120 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Shadwell Creek Poor 6224 Albemarle Keswick Road Carroll Creek Poor 6229 Albemarle Wheeler Road Moores Creek Poor 6230 Albemarle Wheeler Road Moores Creek Poor 6258 Albemarle Blair Park Road Lickinghole Creek Poor 8000 Charlottesville Dairy Road US 250 Bypass Poor 1007 Albemarle SR 20 (Scottsville Rd) Stream Fair 1049 Albemarle US 250 (Ivy Rd) Mechums River Fair 1081 Albemarle SR 22 (Louisa Rd) Branch Carroll Creek Fair 1117 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Camp Branch Fair 1118 Albemarle US 250 (Richmond Rd) Barn Branch Fair 1139 Albemarle US 250 (Monacan Trail Road) Barracks Road Fair 1154 Albemarle US 29 (Seminole Trail) North Fork Rivanna River Fair 1164 Albemarle US 29 (Monacan Trail) Fontaine Avenue Fair 1165 Albemarle US 29 (Monacan Trail) Fontaine Avenue Fair 1170 Albemarle SR 20 (Monticello Ave) Moores Creek Fair 1171 Albemarle SR 20 (Monticello Ave) Moores Creek Fair 2043 Albemarle I‐64 SR 20 (Scottsville Rd) Fair Rivanna River and Buckingham 2047 Albemarle I‐64 Branch RR tracks Fair Rivanna River and Buckingham 2048 Albemarle I‐64 Branch RR tracks Fair 2051 Albemarle I‐64 Private entrance Fair 2065 Albemarle I‐64 SR 682 (Broad Axe Rd) Fair 2066 Albemarle I‐64 SR 682 (Broad Axe Rd) Fair 2067 Albemarle I‐64 US 29 (Monacan Trail Rd) Fair Moores Creek and Norfolk 2068 Albemarle I‐64 Southern RR tracks Fair Moores Creek and Norfolk 2069 Albemarle I‐64 Southern RR tracks Fair 8006 Charlottesville Copeley Road Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 8013 Charlottesville Rugby Rd Buckingham Branch RR tracks Fair 8008 Charlottesville Park Street US 250 Bypass Good 8007 Charlottesville Locust Avenue US 250 Bypass Good Constrained Bicycle and Pedestrian Project List (Draft) Length Cost Cost Barrier LRTP BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier (miles) (Low) (High) Cost Cost BP5 Avon St - Monticello Rd BL Tier 1 0.31 0.22 0.43 0.32 BP13 US250 - East of Park St SUP Tier 1 0.48 0.86 1.80 1.33 BP14 US250 - West of Park St SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.10 0.22 0.16 BP20 US29 - Fashion Square SUP Tier 1 1.26 2.26 4.73 3.50 BP23 Emmet St - South of US250 SUP Tier 1 0.33 0.59 1.25 0.92 BP25 Emmet St - Barracks Shopping SUP Tier 1 0.55 0.98 2.05 1.52 BP29 Avon St - City Boundry BL Tier 1 0.40 0.29 0.56 0.88 1.31 BP30 Copeley Rd BL Tier 1 0.37 0.27 0.52 0.39 BP35 Whitewood Rd BL Tier 1 0.58 0.55 1.40 0.98 BP36 Greenbrier Dr - East BL EX SR Tier 1 0.43 0.30 0.59 0.45 BP46 Long St SUP Tier 1 0.54 0.96 2.01 1.49 BP64 Biscuit Run - Connector SUP Tier 1 0.98 1.76 3.69 2.72 BP68 Rivanna River - US29 Connection SUP Tier 1 1.10 1.98 4.16 3.07 BP77 John Warner Pkway - Connector SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.12 0.24 2.00 2.18 BP78 US250 - Hydraulic crossing SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.32 2.77 2.04 BP80 Riverview Park - Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.61 1.09 2.29 2.45 4.14 BP95 Rockcreek Rd - Parallel SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.33 2.79 2.06 BP103 Meadow Creek - Hillsdale Dr Connector SUP Tier 1 0.26 0.46 0.97 0.72 BP116 Hydraulic Rd - East of Hillsdale Dr SUP EX SR Tier 1 0.19 0.33 0.70 0.52 BP121 Broadway St BL Tier 1 0.96 0.92 2.32 1.62 BP122 Broadway St Ext SUP Tier 1 0.24 0.42 0.89 0.66 BP128 Meadow Creek - Hydraulic SUP Tier 1 0.90 1.61 3.37 2.49 BP129 Greenbrier Dr - West BL EX SR Tier 1 0.13 0.12 0.31 0.22 BP130 Sunset Ave - Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.42 0.57 BP143 Old Lynchburg Rd BL Tier 1 0.63 0.76 2.19 1.47 BP147 Meadow Creek - Greenbriar Park SUP Tier 1 0.40 0.72 1.51 1.12 BP154 Stadium Rd BL Tier 1 0.25 0.18 0.34 0.26 BP157 9th St SW BL Tier 1 0.32 0.23 0.44 0.33 BP161 5th St Hub SUP Tier 1 0.54 0.96 2.02 1.49 Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (tier 1 is highest priority) Length: length of the project in miles Cost: low and high estimates for cost of the project (in millions), excluding bridges, tunnels or overcoming other barriers Barrier Cost: initial estimate of cost (in millions) for necessary bridges, tunnels or other infrastructure that crosses major barriers LRTP Cost: cost (in millions) used for LRTP constraining; calculated as barrier cost added to the average of the low and high costs Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Vision List (Draft) Column Descriptions BPID: ID number, corresponds to map Location/Name: general project location Type: SUP is shared use path, BL is bike lane and sidewalk, SR is shared road and sidewalk Final Tier: the final prioritization tier from the Jefferson Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (tier 1 is highest priority) Length: length of the project in miles Cost: low and high estimates for cost of the project (in millions), excluding bridges, tunnels or overcoming other barriers Barrier Cost: initial estimate of cost (in millions) for necessary bridges, tunnels or other infrastructure that crosses major barriers Length Cost Cost Barrier BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier (miles) (Low) (High) Cost BP1 Ivy Rd - Bypass SUP EX SR Tier 2 0.89 1.60 3.35 0.88 BP2 E Market St - West BL Tier 2 0.61 0.43 0.84 BP4 Barracks Rd - City West BL Tier 2 0.52 0.37 0.71 BP6 Water St BL EX SR Tier 1 0.82 0.58 1.13 BP7 Ridge McIntire Rd - Downtown BL Tier 1 0.28 0.20 0.39 BP9 Dairy Rd BL Tier 3 0.52 0.37 0.72 BP12 High St - West BL Tier 2 0.56 0.40 0.78 BP15 High St - East BL Tier 2 0.37 0.26 0.51 BP16 Grove Rd BL Tier 3 0.80 0.57 1.10 BP18 US29 - County boarder SUP Tier 3 5.91 10.60 22.25 1.40 BP19 US29 - Rio Rd SUP Tier 1 1.15 2.06 4.32 BP21 Fontaine Ave - Interchange SUP Tier 2 0.78 1.40 2.95 BP22 Commonwealth Dr - North SR Tier 2 0.75 0.37 1.56 BP22 Commonwealth Dr - North SUP Tier 2 0.16 0.29 0.60 BP26 Pantops Bridge SUP Tier 1 0.12 0.21 0.45 2.10 BP27 Rte 20 - US64 Intersection SUP Tier 2 0.81 1.45 3.05 BP28 5th St SUP EX BL Tier 1 1.80 3.23 6.79 BP31 Preston Ave BL Tier 2 0.66 0.47 0.92 BP33 Meade Ave BL Tier 3 0.41 0.29 0.57 BP34 Ivy Rd - Ednam SUP Tier 3 1.85 3.31 6.95 BP37 McCormick Rd - West BL EX SR Tier 1 0.39 0.28 0.55 BP38 Rio Rd - US29 BL Tier 1 0.40 0.38 0.96 BP39 Hydraulic Rd - East of Georgetown Rd SUP Tier 1 0.67 1.21 2.54 BP40 Barracks Rd - County BL Tier 2 0.94 0.90 2.29 BP41 Ivy Rd - East of Ivy SUP Tier 3 3.04 5.45 11.43 BP42 Three Nothed Rd SUP Tier 3 3.90 6.99 14.68 BP43 Hydraulic Rd - West of US29 SUP Tier 1 0.31 0.56 1.18 BP44 US29 - Bypass SUP Tier 3 0.41 0.73 1.53 BP45 McCormick Rd - East BL EX SR Tier 1 0.51 0.36 0.71 Length Cost Cost Barrier BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier (miles) (Low) (High) Cost BP47 Avon St Ext - County Boundry SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.33 2.79 BP48 Peter Jefferson Pkwy BL Tier 2 1.22 1.47 4.23 BP49 Berkmar Dr - South BL Tier 2 0.66 0.80 2.31 BP50 Commonwealth Dr - South BL Tier 2 0.76 0.54 1.06 BP52 Georgetown Rd BL Tier 3 1.09 0.78 1.51 BP53 Crozet Dr - North BL Tier 3 1.20 1.15 2.91 BP55 Ivy Rd - West of Ivy SUP Tier 3 3.58 6.42 13.47 1.40 BP56 Earlysville Rd BL Tier 3 0.67 0.80 2.32 BP58 US29 - Airport SUP Tier 3 1.27 2.28 4.80 BP59 McIntire Rd SUP Tier 1 0.43 0.78 1.63 BP60 Avon St Ext - US64 Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.84 1.50 3.15 2.80 BP61 Reservoir Rd SR Tier 3 2.82 1.38 5.88 BP62 US29 - Hydraulic SUP Tier 3 0.89 1.59 3.33 BP66 Rte 20 - South of US64 SUP Tier 2 1.17 2.09 4.38 BP69 Southern Railway SUP Tier 2 1.96 3.52 7.38 BP70 Rivanna River - South of Pen Park SUP Tier 2 0.53 0.95 1.98 BP71 Moores Creek - Quarry Park SUP Tier 2 0.67 1.20 2.52 BP72 Stribling Ave Ext SUP EX TR Tier 2 1.17 2.10 4.41 0.52 BP73 Carters Mountain Connector SUP Tier 2 0.64 1.15 2.41 2.00 BP74 Moores Creek - East of Monticello Rd SUP Tier 2 1.75 3.14 6.60 0.88 BP75 Moores Creek - Pollocks Branch SUP Tier 2 0.96 1.73 3.63 BP76 Highland Ave Ext SUP Tier 3 1.03 1.85 3.88 BP79 Moores Creek - Azalea Park SUP EX TR Tier 2 0.47 0.84 1.75 BP83 Melbourne Rd BL Tier 2 0.69 0.49 0.96 BP85 Carlton Rd BL Tier 2 0.57 0.41 0.79 BP86 5th St Ext - Old Lynchburg Rd SUP Tier 1 1.84 3.29 6.90 BP87 14th St NW BL Tier 2 0.59 0.42 0.81 BP88 Meadowbrook Heights Rd BL Tier 3 0.80 0.77 1.95 BP89 Rugby Rd - US250 SR Tier 3 0.70 0.34 1.46 BP90 Sunet Ave Ext - North BL EX SR Tier 2 0.32 0.39 1.11 BP91 Rivanna River - Pen Park SUP Tier 3 1.65 2.95 6.19 BP92 Sunset Ave Ext - South BL Tier 2 1.34 1.61 4.66 BP93 Rugby Rd - Dairy Rd BL Tier 3 0.42 0.30 0.58 BP94 Biscuit Run - 5th St Connector SUP Tier 2 0.90 1.62 3.39 0.68 BP97 State Farm Blvd BL Tier 2 0.86 1.04 2.99 BP98 Town and Country Ln Ext - Stony Point BL Tier 3 0.29 0.34 0.99 BP99 Mill Creek Dr SR Tier 3 1.17 0.57 2.45 BP100 Riverview Park SUP Tier 2 0.41 0.73 1.54 Length Cost Cost Barrier BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier (miles) (Low) (High) Cost BP101 Town and Country Ln Ext - Rivanna SUP Tier 3 0.15 0.27 0.56 BP102 Wakefield Rd SR Tier 3 0.39 0.00 0.00 BP102 Wakefield Rd SR Tier 3 0.32 0.00 0.00 BP102 Wakefield Rd SUP Tier 3 0.05 0.09 0.19 BP104 Bunker Hill Dr SR Tier 3 0.41 0.20 0.85 BP106 Tonsler Park SR Tier 2 0.40 0.00 0.00 BP106 Tonsler Park SUP Tier 2 0.36 0.64 1.34 BP107 Norfolk Southern Railroad SUP Tier 2 1.17 2.10 4.41 BP108 Madison Ave BL Tier 2 0.35 0.25 0.48 BP109 Allied St Ext SUP Tier 2 0.30 0.54 1.13 2.00 BP109 Allied St Ext SUP Tier 2 0.15 0.27 0.57 BP109 Allied St Ext SR Tier 2 0.42 0.00 0.00 BP109 Allied St Ext BL Tier 2 0.03 0.02 0.04 BP109 Allied St Ext SR Tier 2 0.17 0.00 0.00 BP110 Jarman Gap Rd BL Tier 3 0.67 0.81 2.33 BP112 Brandywine Dr SR Tier 3 0.21 0.00 0.00 BP113 Berkmar Rd - Airport BL Tier 1 0.41 0.50 1.43 BP115 Hydraulic Rd - East of US29 SUP Tier 1 0.22 0.39 0.82 BP117 Holiday Dr SUP Tier 2 0.52 0.93 1.96 0.88 BP118 Angus Rd BL Tier 2 0.93 0.89 2.26 BP119 College Dr BL Tier 3 0.83 1.00 2.89 BP120 College Dr Ext SUP Tier 2 0.53 0.96 2.01 BP123 Brandon Ave SR Tier 2 0.57 0.14 0.60 BP123 Brandon Ave SUP Tier 2 0.22 0.39 0.83 BP124 10th St NE BL Tier 2 0.34 0.24 0.47 BP125 Locust Ave BL Tier 3 1.01 0.96 2.44 BP126 Richmond Rd SUP Tier 3 4.36 7.82 16.41 BP127 Foxhaven Farm SR Tier 3 1.04 0.51 2.18 BP131 Moores Creek - East of Avon St SUP Tier 2 0.41 0.73 1.54 BP133 Darden Towe Park SUP Tier 2 0.52 0.93 1.95 BP134 Zan Rd BL Tier 2 0.62 0.75 2.15 BP135 Massie Rd - Copeley Rd SUP Tier 1 0.74 1.32 2.78 BP136 Rugby Rd - Preston Ave BL Tier 3 0.30 0.21 0.41 BP138 College Dr - US64 Crossing SUP Tier 3 0.80 1.44 3.03 2.00 BP139 Rivanna River - South Fork SUP Tier 3 1.05 1.89 3.96 BP140 South Pantops Dr BL Tier 2 0.90 0.87 2.20 BP141 New House Dr BL Tier 1 0.34 0.41 1.20 BP142 Rivanna River - Pantops SUP Tier 2 1.49 2.68 5.62 Length Cost Cost Barrier BPID Location/Name Type Status Final Tier (miles) (Low) (High) Cost BP144 Biscuit Run - Park SUP Tier 3 1.96 3.51 7.37 BP145 Rivanna Rive - Darden Towe Crossing SUP Tier 2 0.08 0.14 0.30 1.75 BP146 Rivanna River - County Boundry SUP Tier 3 0.75 1.34 2.80 BP148 Avon St Ext - Rte 20 SUP Tier 3 0.77 1.38 2.89 BP149 Avon St Ext - South of Mill Creek SUP Tier 2 1.13 2.02 4.24 BP150 Crozet Dr - South SR Tier 2 0.22 0.00 0.00 BP151 Moores Creek - 5th St Crossing SUP EX TR Tier 2 0.62 1.10 2.32 0.88 BP152 Rio Rd - Park St BL Tier 2 1.73 2.09 6.02 BP153 Park St BL Tier 2 0.65 0.46 0.90 BP155 Old Mills Trail SUP Tier 2 7.94 14.24 29.89 BP156 E Market St - East SR Tier 3 0.88 0.43 1.84 BP156 Riverside Ave Ext SR Tier 3 0.43 0.11 0.45 BP158 Foxhaven Farm - Ivy Connector SUP Tier 3 1.54 2.76 5.79 BP159 Moores Creek - Azalea Park Ext SUP EX TR Tier 2 0.65 1.16 2.43 0.88 BP160 US29 - Rivanna Crossing SUP Tier 1 0.92 1.65 3.47 1.40 CORRIDOR CORRIDOR INFORMATION INFORMATION Crozet BP6 8 BP 0 BP35 2 BP 1 29 BP 3 6 BP 1 47 BP103 28 1 BP77 BP BP78 BP 11 3 P2 6 5B 2 BP 0 BP3 BP 1 BP 4 1 3B P4 6 15 4 BP BP157 BP 80 8 0 BP121 5 BP BP BP BP122 BP130 9 9 5 2 BP 61 BP143 1 BP 4 6 BP LRTP 2045 Constrained ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors identified as constrained projects for LRTP 2045. Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridors FEATURES 2 Miles N Parks and Conservation Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk Existing Shared Use Path Railroads Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk BP ID Number Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk CORRIDOR INFORMATION 18 Crozet BP57 BP 58 P113 BP53 BP B 110 BP42 BP BP68 0 16 BP BP16 P1 51 BP 3 9 BP56 BP49 B BP22 69 BP162 BP BP 38 20 BP35 BP BP 50 9 36 13 BP 18 BP 102 62 BP 52 BP BP BP BP 8 BP146 40 1 12 88 44 BP BP BP BP BP BP 78 84 40 10 BP41 BP BP16 4 52 BP BP91 4 BP3 BP1 4 135 BP 5 BP BP89 1 P2 17 BP1 0 BP BP82 1 4 B 65 6 BP8 BP13 13 158 5 BP70 3 BP2 BP 12 BP31 BP109 3 BP BP3 BP BP15 BP 87 BP3 45 10 7 46 BP 7 BP 98 BP BP BP12 BP 7 54 BP6 14 BP1 BP12 BP 2 BP7 6 2 97 23 10 BP BP21 BP54 BBP 111 48 BP1 61 BP 80 85 BP121 P4 BP BP BP 2 BP 8 BP BP BP7 BP3 95 76 74 29 BP122 90 BP75 B BP BP15 P126 28 BP15 BP BP BP71 BP 5 7 BP151 BP 27 BP1 BP4 9 BP92 BP143 BP 73 BP86 BP120 38 60 BP BP9 64 BP 9 94 BP 66 BP 9 14 BP BP144 BP148 Jefferson Area Bike/Ped Plan ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors identified as the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Regional Corridors All projects are included in LRTP 2045 Vision lists. FEATURES 2 Miles N Parks and Conservation Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk Existing Shared Use Path Railroads Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk Rural Corridors Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk BP ID Number CORRIDOR INFORMATION BP56 BP22 19 BP BP49 BP22 BP162 69 BP BP 38 20 BP35 BP BP 12 BP 9 2 36 10 BP 50 BP 62 BP BP103 9 BP 13 52 BP BP 39 BP BP102 134 147 BP BP 6 8 14 128 11 43 BP BP BP BP 44 BP 10 88 BP BP 11 BP77 4 BP 5 B BP 40 78 BP BP BP 84 P1 89 4 BP16 17 23 BP BP 9 2 34 BP 15 BP BP 93 25 BP BP91 BP BP 83 BP 17 BP 35 1 82 P1 81 BP 0 B 4 BP1 P24 6 BP1 11 65 13 33 BP BP BP153 BP3 158 32 B BP70 5 BP109 BP109 12 BP 8 BP 10 BP BP BP1 BP3 14 BP1 3 BP 1 BP 10 87 46 1 BP BP 98 59 BP 45 BP3 07 BP 2 7 BP1 5 6 BP 1 BP BP BP12 BP7 10 14 BP 1 2 4 33 4 BP6 14 7 12 15 123 BP 6 BP12 154 BP BP 10 BP BP BP BP 111 2 BP157 BP BP 14 BP21 97 BP BP54 BP 0 BP61 106 BP BP8 123 BP 0 15 BP 6 6 BP 5 72 BP121 15 BP 48 85 BP BP BP BP 95 BP3 90 BP7 74 28 29 BP122 BP 6 BP BP 75 BP BP BP 15 BP159 5 BP1 BP71 31 47 BP BP151 BP 79 BP 8 27 1 BP92 13 73 143 16 BP BP BP 9 BP 11 BP120 BP86 BP 60 BP 64 BP BP 94 BP 66 99 BP 9 Jefferson Area Bike/Ped Plan ABOUT THIS MAP: This map depicts the corridors 14 BP identified as the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Regional Corridors All projects are included in LRTP 2045 Vision lists. BP 0.5 Miles N 14 FEATURES 4 BP148 Parks and Conservation Proposed Bike Lane and Sidewalk Proposed Shared Use Path Lakes and Rivers Existing Bike Lane and Sidewalk Existing Shared Use Path Railroads Proposed Shared Road and Sidewalk Rural Corridors Existing Shared Road and Sidewalk BP ID Number Transit Projects Project Project Name Jurisdiction Cost ID T1 Express Bus on US‐29 Corridor Both PE‐only $1.0 T2 Commuter Bus to Crozet Both $0.30 T3 Bus Route to Avon/Mill Creek Both $0.40 T4 Increased Bus Service to Pantops Both $0.40 T6 Commuter Service from Valley Both N/A PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFING Outline: 1. LRTP Overview 2. Project Lists • Roadway • Intersections • Bridges • Bicycle/Pedestrian • Transit March, 2019 1. LRTP Overview UnJAM 2035 United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan Long Range Transportation Plan  Forward looking 25 year plan  Updated every 5 years  Focuses on understanding future transportation needs  Requirement for receiving Federal transportation $$$  Requirement for SMART SCALE  Planning for transportation needs that are regional in scope  Travel through the region  Around the region  Between localities Long Range Transportation Plan  Uses a performance based approach  Must meet Federal requirements for addressing performance measures (MAP 21)  Safety, congestion, state of good repair, freight, access, and transit  Goals objectives and quantifiable performance measures  Use of a Travel Demand Model  Plan includes a fiscally constrained list and an unconstrained visioning list  In Virginia projects are now funded through Smart Scale and other competitive programs Estimate of Future funding LRTP 2045 categories and estimates (all Bridges numbers in millions) $101.7 Roadways $126.9 Additional: - Transit Flexible STP of $8.5 million Bike/Ped - Transit operating $43.1 Intersections of $95 million $82.3 Roadway project evaluation Complete list of Potential Projects Sept 2018 Input from MPO Tech and CTAC. Potential Priority Projects Oct - Nov Input from Public, Albemarle PC and Charlottesville PC. 2018 Input from MPO Tech and CTAC. Refined Scenario List Dec 2018 - Additional stakeholder input gathered as necessary. February 2019 Input from MPO Tech and CTAC. Vision March 2019 Constrained LRTP List 2. Project Lists • Roadway • Intersections • Bridges • Bicycle/Pedestrian • Transit Timeline  March  Have finalized project lists  Review multiple document chapters  April  Review complete Plan draft and public hearing (1)  May  Plan approval and final public hearing (2) Questions? For more information, please visit: campo.tjpdc.org/LRTP