Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, February 11, 2020 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 – November 26, 2019 - Work Session 2. Minutes – December 10, 2019 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 3. Planning Commission Operating Guidelines 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. CP20-0001 - Barracks/Emmet Intersection Improvements – Review of Project for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the conceptual plan for the proposed Barracks Road & Emmet Street Intersection Improvement Smart Scale Project. The project proposes improvements to Barracks Road within the City of Charlottesville, between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road, in order to accommodate a new shared bicycle and pedestrian path. The project also includes operational and safety upgrades at the Barracks Road and Emmet intersection. The purpose of the review is to determine if the general character, approximate location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Persons interested in the conceptual design may contact Project Manager Kyle Kling via e-mail (klingk@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3994). 2. SP19-00010 - Harris Street Apartments - Landowner Cville Business Park, LLC is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-457(b)(5) to authorize a specific mixed-use development (apartments (“multifamily dwellings”) with some commercial uses) at 1221, 1223 and 1225 Harris Street (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has approximately 345 feet of frontage on Harris Street, and is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 34 as Parcels 90B, 90C and 90.1 (City Real Estate Parcel IDs 340090B00, 340090C00, and 340090100), having a total area of approximately 2.446 acres. The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Corridor (IC). In the IC district, multifamily residential development is allowed only as part of a mixed-use building or development. The project proposed by the applicant is a 6-story, 166,800 square foot mixed-use building with 13,050 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and up to 105 residential dwelling units (approximately 98,975 square feet, total) above the ground floor (up to 43 DUA). In the IC zoning district, mixed use buildings are allowed by-right, up to a height of 4 stories, with residential density up to 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA). The application also seeks approval of two (2) additional building stories, and an additional 22 DUA. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Business and Technology, but no density range is specified by the Comprehensive Plan. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h­ z/neighborhood-development-services or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Comprehensive Plan Amendment request may contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3186). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Wednesday, February 26, 2020 – 5:00PM Work Preliminary Discussion: Stribling site Session Cherry Avenue Small Area Plan Comprehensive Plan Tuesday, March 10, 2020 – 4:30 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday, March 10, 2020 – 5:30 PM Regular Site Plan - South First Street Phase 2 Meeting Rezoning and Critical Slopes - Flint Hill PUD Minutes – January 14, 2020 – Pre- meeting and Regular meeting 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 Site Plan and Entrance Corridor – 1617 Emmet Street, Gallery Court Hotel Entrance Corridor – Preston Turn Lane Project Comp Plan Amendment – Small Area Plan – Starr Hill, Cherry Avenue Rezoning – Landonia Circle 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 1/1/2020 TO 1/31/2020 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. Carlton Views PUD Phase IV (Carlton Views Apartments III) 1339 Carlton Avenue – January 13, 2020 b. 901 River Road – January 15, 2020 c. 10th & Page Park - January 30, 2020 3. Site Plan Amendments a. Greenleaf Center – January 9, 2020 b. Charlottesville Technology Center (CODE Building) – January 9, 2020 c. 110 Avon Street (Inova Building) – January 23, 2020 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 100-102 Peterson Place (Crigler- Freeman) - January 15, 2020 1 Planning Commission Work Session November 26, 2019 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioners Lahendro, Solla-Yates, Heaton, Stolzenberg, Green Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson The meeting was called to order by the chairman at 5:00 PM 1. Capital Improvement Process Dr. Richardson, City Manager – This budget is our five year plan. We usually talk about projects in the capital budget that are $50,000 or more. These are non-reoccurring or non-operational. They have useful lifespans over five years. We do have a tight timeframe in terms of getting all of the information from all of our departments and the community in terms of our plans with the end date in April. We have done some updates and some different changes in terms of our spending rates on existing projects. This year, I asked all of the departments to provide a list of projects that they consider essential and legally mandated or have implications in terms of health and environmental safety or security hazards. In FY 19 going into 20, there was a big jump in the number of capital projects. It jumped from $23 million to $35 million. FY 20 going into FY 21, we had to look at the overall funding and look at what we could budget. We can’t exceed our projected revenues in terms of our expenditures. The transfer from the general fund is a little above 3%. That is a mandated policy that we have. That went to $7.3 million. Our vendor fees have stayed the same. We have not gotten to our year end appropriations. We will get that at the end of December. In FY 20, we did a re-programming of existing CIP projects to be able to balance the budget for 20. For FY 2021, we had to do a lot of movement. I don’t know if we will be able to maneuver that much. Our miscellaneous expense, going into FY 21, there is a jump. That includes our share with Albemarle County for the CATEC project, as well as $650,000 for our revenue sharing for VDOT projects. I do want to speak about the bonds. When you go from $22 million to $26 million, our capacity is starting to lessen. If that number 22 was going in the other direction, we would be able to do more. We want to stay consistent. Over the years, there are a lot of projects that we may have in the queue that may need to get done. When your debt capacity starts to get closer to that end number, we want to take our time trying to get there, and not impact other things we need to get done throughout the city. We went from $35.4 million to $35.8 million going into FY 21. With the proposed expenditures, we tried to stay within the parameters of looking at improving our affordable housing, as well as maintaining funding levels for the school reconfiguration. The $3 million difference in education is primarily the design work for the reconfiguration of the schools. Moving from the facilities from $1.5 million to $3.4 million. That is putting in additional money to take care of one of our recreation facilities. We are increasing the public safety $3.7 million to $4.9 million with the purchase of the fire apparatus, as well as the contribution of $3 million dollar District Court. With transportation and access, there is the Belmont Bridge. The $4.9 million is for the parking deck on Main Street, as 2 well as money for revenue sharing with VDOT. For Parks and Recreation, that was a reduction of over $1.2 million. With CAHF, there is a slight increase. With Friendship Court, we looked at that overall and what was going to be spent. Going into FY 21, we went with that number that we were working with them to see what exactly was going to be spent. There is $3 million with CRHA, but that money hasn’t been spent. As we move within the fiscal year and the end of the fiscal year, if that money hasn’t been spent, they may not need that additional $3 million that was put in 21. With CRHA, there is $18 million over the next five years. We were able to stretch that over the six year period. We may have to make adjustments moving forward, but right now that is where we are. With Economic Development, we didn’t have any money in there last year. We put money in there this year for projects that we may go back and do some purchases in 21. Our storm water initiatives were neighborhood projects. With Information Technology Infrastructure, we are looking to streamline that. We have the IT Department speaking with the different departments about the different computer software. Chairman Mitchell – With the storm water, you moved that out of the Capital and into the Operating Budget? Dr. Richardson – No. We have a storm water utility. The $50,000 was in the Capital Fund for years. Since we have a storm water utility, that money could be spent from that budget. The Senior Center is being built, and that was part of the $600,000 contribution from the previous fiscal year. That outlines the dollars from $35.4 million to $35.8 million. We have provided the overall draft expenditures, moving forward in 21 and outlined to FY 25. Krisy Hammill, Office of Budget and Performance Management – This is bits and pieces of the full CIP. We can go back to it for questions. We have heard about three different pots of money. All of these accounts had existing balances. We spread out the funding in the future years to spend down these fund balances. They were bicycle and infrastructure. There is currently $546,000 available. We reduced the funding in 21 and 22 to spend down those funds. We picked up an annual funding of $200,000 beginning in FY 23 to FY 25. Of the current projects underway, there is $405,000 allocated of that $546,000 to be completed over the next two years. There is $683,000 for new sidewalks. Funding for all five years was reduced to spend down those existing funds. Of that current allocation, $250,000 are for sidewalks currently in design. $433,000 is planned to be used as match for VDOT revenue sharing projects. We did include $500,000 in new funding over the next five years. One million dollars is programmed, in addition to the new sidewalks, for ADA sidewalk improvements over the next five years. With Parks and Recreation, there is currently $326,000 available in that account. We reduced the funding in 21, but we did pick up the annual funding in 22 and put that in the remaining four years to allow for spend down of those accounts. Chairman Mitchell – The good news is that it’s not as bad. The money is there and will be available to do the things that we want to do. We are using money that we haven’t spent yet. We need to spend the money that we have. Commissioner Green – It was a little shocking to see that the Planning Commission was not involved in this. In those meetings that we have had, this is a question that has come up. Some of that buildup for sidewalks and bicycles, was to acquire right of way. We had 3 enough funds to acquire right of way, especially in times when we were already doing the road. What is the plan now? Dr. Richardson – I don’t think that you won’t have the funds. I think that you have the funds in there. There are funds available that haven’t been spent. That money will be utilized for those things. In other budget years, we have to balance these budgets over the next five years to complete our capital projects budget. Things may change over time. Projects that were slated to be very important may not be that way in the next year. We will be able to move money around. What we had to do this fiscal year was not put money into areas that had fund balances. We had to spread it out to be able to fund those other things within the capital budget. Our revenues have to meet our expenditures. Commissioner Green – It was explained that pot of money was there. If we have an opportunity to make those purchases, we are ready and have those funds available. Dr. Richardson – The purpose was to build up those funds to be able to do that. If it got to a point where we could not afford other things these would have to stay out for a year. In FY 22, there may have been other projects. We are so strapped this year with our revenue. Commissioner Green – Has there been any research for a cheaper way to do sidewalks if we sub-contract that work out? Paul Oberdorfer, Deputy City Manager – Our in-house crews are doing spot repairs. They are working ahead of the paving program, doing ADA ramps. There just isn’t enough contractor capacity right now with our on call contract. We are trying to build that with the contractors. We have to keep up with the ramps. In order to keep up with sidewalks and ramps, we are going to have to look at alternate means of delivery. Part of that is getting a third concrete crew in house. When you look at these spot repairs, the mobilization and traffic control can be quite expensive. Keeping it in house affords us the ability to do these smaller things that are not attractive to contractors. Contractors are doing the larger projects like 300 to 400 feet of sidewalk. Commissioner Green – Does that go for the Streets That Work Program? Paul Oberdorfer – We do have some capacity. We are looking at doing one of our first projects that is going to be funding by that. It is going to be in house. There is no contractor capacity available, and we can do it on overtime. 2. Public Comments Jill Marks – Executive Director of McIntire Botanical Director – A parking lot and trails were part of the infrastructure plan approved by the city in 2015 – We are unable to begin construction until the funding is available. Jason Halbert – Neighborhood asking for how things get cut – Need more transparency – Improve the neighborhood and sidewalks, especially along Stribling Avenue – Bike infrastructure program needs to be maintained – Need for a sidewalk budget every year – No need for a new fire truck. 4 Anthony Harra – Expressing support for the investment in affordable housing – Support for $10 million for affordable housing infrastructure – Need for additional flexibility for projects in affordable housing – Asking to increase the funding to $50 million over the next five years. Peggy Van Yahres – Represent the Tree Commission – Appreciate the funding increase in the tree planting – We have a crisis with the Emerald Ash Bore – We have asked for $50,000 to inoculate several trees – We are partnering with the Chamber to do a project in McIntire Park East – The focal point will be this stone terrace and recognition of community leaders. Roxanne White – The master plan was approved in 2015 – Don’t know how that money was spent – The trails have not been completed – A lot of the recreation projects have been put into the budget – Access to the natural areas have not been completed – Commitment to the master plan to McIntire Park has not been followed through by the city. Peter Krebbs – Piedmont Environment Council – Talk about the bicycle infrastructure – Sidewalks and bike lanes are essential services – The city solely responsible for bike lanes and sidewalks – There is a pause in the funding for bike lanes and trails – The money is highly leveraged. Emily Dreyfus – Work with Legal Aid – Residents of public housing are facing significant health and safety issues because of the aging properties and the lack of upkeep – Need to restore the $3 million funding for affordable housing and infrastructure. Juan Diego Wade – Work on the preschool at Walker – Representing the School Board – Support for the reconfiguration of the schools. Sean Stockholm – Don’t need to tear down the Lucky Seven for the garage – There is enough parking in the city – The money can be used for pedestrian and bike lanes. Navarre Bartz – Reiterate the previous comments regarding bike and pedestrian infrastructure – Bike and pedestrian is very important – Most of the prioritized projects have not seen much headway. 3. Commissioner Questions and Comments Chairman Mitchell – Do we have any flexibility to do more fundraising through bonds? More bonds for redevelopment? Are we in danger of losing our AAA rating? Dr. Richardson – We are not in danger. The danger is when we reach our full capacity. The capacity is starting to shrink. We are trying to get all of the projects in without raising taxes or decreasing services. We are talking about affordability in terms of the cost of additional debt on what we have now. Chairman Mitchell – When you have more debt, you have more debt to pay off. That reduces the ability to spend operating funds. We do want to protect our debt level. What was the reason for the jump from 2019 to 2020 with the CIP? Krisy Hammill – That was primarily the commitment to affordable housing. 5 Commissioner Stolzenberg – With these roofing projects, are you also working the solar installations into that? Paul Oberdorfer – There is a program in place. We have taken a vacation from solar installation and part of that is waiting for the PPA to be accessible and use as a tool. The other piece of that is trying to get money together. Over time we will have enough funds to do a large scale installation. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Are we running out of places to put solar panels? Paul Oberdorfer – A lot of that is the age of the roof. There are roofs that are going to be replaced, and we don’t want to put solar panels on roofs that are going to be replaced in the future. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Where is money from parking going? Krisy Hammill – $1.2 million did go back into the general fund. The plan is to build up a fund balance in the parking fund. All of the net revenue is going back into the general fund. When we set up the parking fund, all of those were general fund revenues. If we funneled it just to the parking fund, there was a net hole in the general fund in terms of revenue. There is a plan to eventually make the parking self-sufficient. We have to make up those revenues in the general fund. Commissioner Stolzenberg – When you say self-sufficient, do you mean revenue producing? Krisy Hammill – The parking fund is accumulating the revenues, paying its own expenses. The net of that is going back to the general fund. Over time, that net going back to the general fund, the plan is to reduce that, so that it stays within the parking fund. As these new parking structures come online, those new expenses and operating expenses, the parking fees will support the operations. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In the long run, we hope to break even? Paul Oberdorfer – Over time, the fees that we anticipate will pay for maintenance, re­ capitalization, and whatever needs to be done with the garage over that period of time. Krisy Hammill – There is not enough parking revenue to support the debt we will issue. It’s still being funded through the general fund debt payments. Commissioner Solla-Yates – What is different about this year? Commissioner Green – State code 15.2-2239 says the local planning commission is to prepare and submit an annual capital improvement programs to governing bodies. The planning commission goals are to help guide the CIP program. We have always had a member from the planning commission, as a part of the review, for transparency leading up to this particular meeting. What is different is we weren’t invited. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Why? Dr. Richardson – I don’t have an answer for you. 6 Commissioner Green – It was for transparency for us to be a part of this, knowing that the planning commission goals, based off the comprehensive plan and the goals of hearing from the public. We still, as this non-governing body, present it to Council. There has always been a member of this commission to serve during those meetings prior to this presentation. Commission Solla-Yates – Why is the commitment to housing smaller? Dr. Richardson – I would not say smaller. It is still the same. It is just spread out over a period of time. Commissioner Solla-Yates – What has changed? Dr. Richardson – The commitment is still the same. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The current agreement with the county is 90 off street spots in addition to the 15 on street spots. Have we explored alternatives to a parking structure on the site? Paul Oberdorfer – We have explored surface lots, the Market Street Garage, and on street parking. The agreement is very specific to deliver in a timeframe that is pretty short. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Do we have to build a parking structure? Paul Oberdorfer – It’s not about timing. It’s about what is promised in the agreement, which is 90 spots in a parking structure. The model that was put before the administration was to have first level retail and three levels of parking that would accommodate 90 parking spaces, with an additional gross of 210 additional spaces. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The bulk of the structure would be non-obligated parking? Paul Oberdorfer – That would be correct. Commissioner Stolzenberg – When we purchased the Lucky Seven and Guadalajara land, how was that money accounted for? Paul Oberdorfer – The $10 million was for design and construction of the deck Commissioner Stolzenberg – This is a big line item on the CIP budget. It would have been best to have Rick here at this meeting. Commissioner Lahendro – I had a question about the Smith Aquatic Center. There has been a lot of money spent, and I am surprised to see it again on the CIP budget. Is there a staff person that can speak about the problems? Paul Oberdorfer – There were a lot of systems that were cutting edge technology. They had a lot of maintenance issues with the systems. When the systems were designed, they were designed for operation outside of the summer months. The facility was supposed to be closed down during the summer. When you think about the capacity of the cooling system, it was designed for a lower level in the system in the summertime to make up for all that humidity and hot temperatures. Over time, there has been a circle of find and fix between different units as they were identified. There wasn’t a unified plan in addressing 7 or modeling the building itself to find out engineering wise what the capacity issues were. When we brought on our new facility maintenance manager, he got a mechanical engineering firm on board. He did a third party analysis. We have a high degree of accuracy in what needs to be done in the mechanical system. That is what the $1.5 million will be covering. Commissioner Heaton – When you talk about pausing a budget, I am not familiar with that term. When you say pause, is the mechanism clear on how to un-pause it? Dr. Richardson – We may be able to come back with funding in the future for those specific projects. Commissioner Heaton – I would just suggest that when groups are invested in planning, it’s made clear to them how to get an un-pause. Otherwise, any planning that they are trying to do will stop until they know the mechanism. Commissioner Green – We are pausing something that we are spending a lot of money on, and we don’t have everything in place as part of that plan. This is in a specific area, for equity reasons, we are trying to finish that park’s master plan. It is a definite pause for the next five years. How do we pick that back up? Are we behind? Commissioner Heaton – I understand the fiscal reasons why you have to make the budget work. If you have to do that, I think that it needs to be accompanied with specific instructions to the constituency groups. Dr. Richardson – Right now it is unfunded. We can only stretch as far as our revenue will allow us in terms of expenditures. We are doing what we can afford. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If you are going to cut the balance to zero this year, can you spread out the balance so that there is money for the out years? Dr. Richardson – It could done like that. It is an option. What we are doing right now is making sure that we can afford it. There are other options such as raising taxes, keeping the tax rate the same, decreasing services and programs, or staff reductions. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We zeroed out the street milling and paving for this year and bumped it up to $2 million for FY 23 and beyond. Why do we need an additional million for street milling and paving? Paul Oberdorfer – We just completed a network wide assessment of the pavements. The firm that conducted the assessment came up with a PCI rating for us. Using micro-paver, we forecasted what we would need in expenditures to keep our PCI at where we wanted and another for where we wanted to be. The ‘where we want to be’ model is $2.3 million. That’s to get the pavements where we need them to be and maintain them. It’s a model based on what we need. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is the goal to be at the current level or above the current level? Paul Oberdorfer – We are slightly below our target number. We zeroed out this first year because of a couple reasons. The first reason was that we didn’t know what the data was until just recently. The other reason is trying to get a program in place. Something 8 that is sophisticated, strategic, and deliverable takes a year to get ramped up. The more resurfacing that we do, the more ADA ramps have to have corrections. There is a limited number of contractors. These are all things that we have to weight and balance to try to get the program to be successful. As we evaluate these assets, you will see where the needle slides as we do annual inspections. If you want to syphon the money off, it does come with a future cost. That cost is devaluing the program. You will have to catch up in the future, and it’s going to cost more in the future. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is poor road quality something that the city receives complaints about? Paul Oberdorfer – We are slightly below average. Chairman Mitchell – There are three big items that have raised eyebrows. One is the Belmont Bridge. The other is the parking structure. The other is the $4 million dollars for West Main Street. What are you going to do with that $4 million for West Main Street? Commissioner Green – We have a West Main Street streetscape plan. Ms. Creasy – Its multiple streetscape upgrades. It’s a four phase project that will improve streetscaping, looking at changing the parking, bike lanes, sidewalks, and undergrounding the utilities. Commissioner Green – We also have smart scale funding for that project, and we have not used that money. Chairman Mitchell – Who is the constituent for that $4 million? Who benefits for that money being spent there? Commissioner Green – The whole idea behind West Main Street streetscape project was to bring life to the street and connectivity between the downtown and University. It was about adding places along West Main Street. Some of it was removing parking to add more pedestrian connectivity and better bike lanes. Chairman Mitchell – It is earmarked to spend next year. Dr. Richardson – That is the plan. Hopefully, the project will move forward in FY 21 and FY 22. Commissioner Green – Some of it could not be taken out because we have the smart scale funding from federal grants. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Don’t we have a $17 million fund balance? Ms. Creasy – The first part is going to be the undergrounding of the utilities. Funding has to be available for that. You have to do phase 1 and phase 2 utilities at the same time for financial reasons. The phases can happen after that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is the undergrounding part of West Main Street? Ms. Creasy – Part of it is considered a betterment. It would be good to have someone give a report. 9 Commissioner Green – Do you have a specific project for this blight remediation? Commissioner Stolzenberg – I asked staff last week about that. Staff said that it was to put money into the account. If there is a property that is problematic, the city can send out a crew and the work. Bill them for it and refill the fund. Commissioner Green – I am going to bring up Darden Towe Park. There is no evidence that we are putting lights at that park. It needs to go through a special use permit. There is not even an application. We keep putting money in this. Krisy Hammill – The reason that was put in last year and this year was because it was an agreement with the county that they match the same. Commissioner Green – That has to go through a process. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Some things that I would like to see include scenarios pushing back the big items. I would also like to see some options in growing the pie, so we don’t have to build a CIP on the dais. Commissioner Heaton – We can ask that before it comes to the dais that staff bring more than one option. Krisy Hammill – It would be nice to know what recommendations you are making for the other options. Commissioner Lahendro – The CIP budget comes to the Planning Commission to get an idea of what the priorities are for the Planning Commission. We have not had the opportunity to guide the process or provide the things that we are most interested in. Chairman Mitchell – There are two things that are going to be driving the conversation. One will be West Main Street and the other will be the parking structure. A couple of other things that are going to drive the conversation are Tonsler Park and the other is the McIntire Park master plan. The other thing is going to be redevelopment. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The last thing that we did not discuss was TARA, the downtown assessment. Paul Oberdorfer – In October 2018, I provided an update to Council about the threat and risk assessment. We looked at the security around the mall and mall crossings. The first piece of that is going to be public engagement. From the public engagement piece will be the engineering piece to get to 30% to form what the final cost will be. We won’t know what that is going to look like until we go through the public engagement piece. Dr. Richardson – The Planning Commission does have input on this. This is something that the City Manager has to prepare for the council. This is my first budget, and I have had good guidance from those in the budget department. 4. Planning Commission Training Lisa Robertson led a training in discussing how the Commissioners interact with each, interactions on social media, meeting with developers, talking about different 10 applications, working as a unit, keeping self-interests out of decisions, and voicing opinions on social media Communications with groups and individuals • The operating guidelines were developed in May, 2017. • There are a number of public service guidelines. • Need to be approachable and listen to everyone that approaches you. • Need to listen to the applicant and those in the public. • Need to involve staff if it effects the agency’s business. • Meetings should be in a public place, such as in City Hall conference room. • There followed a discussion regarding the communications with groups and individuals. • Chairman Mitchell mentioned that he had meetings with stakeholders, not developers. He did feel that he could speak with those stakeholders. • There was a conversation about opinions expressed on social media about applications, applicants, and projects. • Chairman Mitchell did bring up that the Planning Commission is an interpretive body. • Commissioner Stolzenberg did bring up that he would not come to a conclusion about the project or application before the meeting. • Commissioner Heaton did mention that commissioners are members of the public and part of the public. • Commissioner Green did bring up that the Planning Commission is the liaison between the public and council. Stewards and recommendation to the Council • Commissioner Green did bring up that the Planning Commission is providing technical advice regarding interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. • The Planning Commission is governed by state law and act as a body. • Commissioner Lahendro did bring up that he has tried to be impartial. • Commissioner Solla-Yates did mention the power of social media reaching those that cannot attend the Planning Commission meetings. Additional Language in the Guidelines • Not express an opinion until all of the information has been gathered at the dais. • Shouldn’t go on social media and give an opinion about applications prior to the meeting at the dais. Commissioners Mitchell and Stolzenberg will work with the City Attorney’s office on Planning Commission on developing operating guidelines. The guidelines will have to be unanimously approved by the full commission. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20 PM 1 nkMinutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET December 10, 2019 – 5:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NDS Conference Room I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 4:30 pm Location: NDS Conference Room Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioners Lahendro, Stolzenberg, Solla-Yates, Heaton, Green, Dowell, Palmer Members Absent: Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Carrie Rainey, Matt Alfele, Alex Ikefuna, Joey Winter, Lisa Robertson, Missy Creasy Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and reviewed the agenda. In reference to CIP, Lisa Robertson provided guidance on the role of the Commission in its review. Commissioner Green asked what the ramifications were of moving or delaying active planning processing and Ms. Robertson noted that was not good planning practice. Commissioner Green also asked about what would happened to projects where federal money may be involved and it was noted that paying back funds could occur if milestones are not met. Ms. Robertson noted that focus should be on how the CIP implements the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Heaton noted his experience from last year and did not feel the PC should be the “numbers people” but can provide recommendations with words like “double” or “move.” Commissioner Green noted frustration with the CIP process. She noted the importance of undergrounding utilities and affordable housing. She reiterated that the parking garage is part of a contract to support the Courts. Commissioners discussed potential ways to frame a motion to move the CIP item forward to Council. Commissioner Solla-Yates asked about items on the plan for the Chick-fil-A at Barracks Road. It was clarified what determinations were in front of the Commission on this project this evening. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order at 5:35 PM by the Chair A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT Commissioner Green – Attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission meeting last Thursday. It was the last meeting until the February, 2020 meeting. We went over the budget. We had a conversation about Go Virginia, which is grant funding for some districts in Virginia. It relates to economic development. I think that there are some things that we can look at to potentially get some funding. I will give a report about that next month. 2 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Attended a meeting of the PLACE Design Task Force. We discussed the Barracks and Emmet Streetscape project. They are leaning towards a separate shared use path going down the south side of that road. There will be some retaining walls involved and a protected separated bike and pedestrian path. That should be coming before us reasonably soon. They just had their design public hearing a couple of weeks ago. I also attended the last MPO Tech meeting of the year. I am now chair of that. We discussed the Hydraulic and 29 plans and the upcoming smart scale process that will award funds in 2021. Commissioner Heaton – Attended the Thomas Jefferson Planning Transportation meeting last week. They discussed some interesting public interactions that they want to do at different festivals using 3 D goggles to get the public involved and working through some of the transportation creative solutions. Commissioner Dowell – I have not attended any meetings. I do have a few updates. The CDBG Task Force recently closed their applications. Binders are being put together and the task force will be getting them to review shortly. We still need a Ridge Street neighborhood representative to serve on that task force. If anyone in the public is interested, please contact Erin Atak, the grants coordinator. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Attended Housing Advisory Committee meeting. There was a long discussion about short term rentals effect on housing. I made no statements of opinion at that meeting. I was incorrectly attributed in The Daily Progress. I don’t know anything on this topic. We also discussed initiating a zoning text amendment on our Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance. Read Brodhead had some specific ideas that were very helpful. Commissioner Lahendro – Attended the BAR meeting in the past month. There were two Certificates of Appropriateness that were passed. There was a preliminary discussion of an apartment development going on Virginia Avenue and nine smaller items where guidance was requested. The Tree Commission met last week. We did approve nominations to City Council for about 25 trees for ordinance protection. The Charlottesville Area Tree Stewards made an annual report on their activities. There was a discussion on the CIP coming to us tonight. There is $75,000 for tree planting in it. The $50,000 that was requested for treating emerald ash bore was not approved. There are currently two vacancies on the Tree Commission. We are advocating for new members. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – We had a Board of Visitors meeting last week. The only thing that pertained to the Planning Commission was the schematic design review for a housing building on the Brandon Avenue Corridor. This will be the second one to open. It will be about the same size on a different site. That one is interesting because it’s the third project we initiated on the site and it is part of the agreement with the city giving the University Brandon Avenue. There were a couple of things that we had to finish before that third project started. One is a planning study for where and what size the bus stop would be on JPA and planning for a future pedestrian link. That 3 has all been done. It will probably be approved at the March meeting. We are going to have an MPC (Master Planning Council) meeting in March. We are working on the agenda for that. C. CHAIR’S REPORT Chairman Mitchell – No Report was given. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – There is no work session on Christmas Eve. We will be back on track in January. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Craig Decker – From Greene County. Had some questions about the Lewis and Clark Statue and the city’s intent to remove it. Has the Commission been consulted on the removal of the statue? Should the Commission be consulted since you were involved in the West Main project? What would the impact be on the West Main project and the funding for that? What are the legal issues about removing the statue? Have the other relevant committees been contacted for their input? What impact would the removal have on downtown? If removed, what would be the location? Bill Emory – The Carlton Views Site Plan effects the wealth challenged. The site plan before you departs from the promises of this development from 2013. The tree preservation proffer from 2013 was approved a year ago. The applicant received stinging feedback from the public regarding the site plan and the lack of recreation space. The developer has put a 400 square foot grass court and dog park in tree preserve at the most remote part of the site. If the Commission decide that it’s a good idea, then the following should be required. Show where the trees will be planted on the site plan. Increase the number of trees planted. Encourage the developer to consult with the Tree Commission. F. CONSENT AGENDA Motion made by Commissioner Solla-Yates to approve the consent agenda and seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Motion approved 7-0. (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Entrance Corridor Review - Recommendation on SUP for Barracks Road The Chairman recessed the meeting until 6:00 PM and the arrival of three city councilors for the public hearings. III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 PM Continuing: Until all public hearings are complete 4 Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing, (iv) Commissioner Discussion and Motion 1. Charlottesville Capital Improvement Program FY 2021-2025: Consideration of the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program totaling $127,952,881 in the areas of Affordable Housing, Education, Economic Development, Public Safety & Justice, Facilities Management, Transportation & Access, Parks & Recreation, Technology Infrastructure, Stormwater Initiatives and General Government Infrastructure. A copy of the proposed CIP is available for review at https://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments­ a-g/budget-and-performancemanagement/fy-2021-budget-worksessions Report prepared by Krisy Hammill, Office of Budget and Performance Management. i. Staff Report Dr. Richardson, City Manager – We are proposing a Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 2021 to 2025. The Capital Improvement Program is a 5 year financing plan. It’s usually projected costs that are over $50,000 and are usually non-recurring or non­ operational in nature that have a useful life of 5 years or more. I want to provide a picture of some of the things that we put into the Capital Program. As we prepared this budget, we looked at the current balances of various line items that we had throughout the Capital Improvement Program over a number of years as well as how much will be spent over the next fiscal year. We were able to determine what projects had funding and projects that we needed to fund moving forward. This is an update of the 2020 to 2024 projections planned as part of the adopted fiscal year 2020 Capital Improvement Program. Because of the impact of the previous year’s expenditures, we were only looking at things, considered essential, in terms of whether it was legally mandated, does it eliminate or prevent any existing environmental, health, safety, or security hazards. We started in August. It’s almost through the entire year, and we go until April, when we will be adopting the budget. I am going to have Krissy Hammill, who can talk about the overall revenues and our expenditures moving forward for FY 2021. I also want to make clear what we talked about before in terms of the overall expenditures within the Capital budgets. When we look at fiscal years 2019 through 2020, there was a significant increase in the amount of Capital dollars that were expensed. It went from $23 million to over $35 million. It was a 51.2% difference from one year to the next year. Going into FY 2020, with that amount, that difference going into FY 2021, it is a difference of about $403,000. We looked at the proposed revenues that we will be able to generate in order to afford the total Capital budget. That’s why we had to do some things in terms of looking at the essential items in terms of putting in the Capital budget to be able to fund it. When you give your recommendations for us to give back to the City Council. We will be able to do that. We can talk more about the budget with the City Council. Things were very tight in terms of what we could afford, based upon the generated revenues for FY 2021, which we are projecting, in terms of transfer from our General Fund into the Capital Fund. In FY 2020, we put over 3%, and that’s a mandated amount. This year we are looking at doing way more than the 3% just to be able to afford it. When we get down to FY 2026, we transfer a significant amount of the Capital Improvement Fund balance to be able to afford the debt service, so we don’t have to increase the tax rate to be able to fund it. By 2026, we are projecting that fund balance will be exhausted. With that, more money has to come over from the General Fund plus that percentage that we put in there from our General Fund 5 expenditures to be able to afford our Capital debt. What we are trying to do is look at ways to be able to afford the overall Capital Improvement Program moving forward and to be able to fund these various projects. It’s going to be a challenge to maintain the existing tax rate or do we look at other areas like increasing the tax rate or decreasing public services or other things that we can do to be able to afford these various capital projects. Krisy Hammill, Office of Budget and Performance Management – I am going to speak about the specifics of the 2021 budget. For FY 2021, in just looking at the revenues, the general fund transfer is the cash that we transfer from the general fund. It complies with our 3% funding policy. This amount of 7.37 is a tiny bit more of the 3% that we’re projecting. The bond issuance is something that we look at over the five years. We do multi-year projections, but for this year, we are looking at about $26.9 million in bonds. The additional transfer from the general fund for the mall vendor fees was an addition last year. That’s a specific offset to an expenditure item that is used for mall infrastructure. The contribution from Albemarle County is a joint project for CATEC roof replacement. The school small-cap contribution is an annual contribution from the schools that offsets an expenditure on the small-cap side for schools. The peg fee revenue. That’s a slight decrease this year. That’s a fee that we get through franchise agreements, and its used for cable channel 10. The VDOT revenue sharing is for two specific projects, which was for the Hydraulic turn signal and the East High Street streetscape project. Those are an offset of the expenditures on the other side. That gets us to a total budget for FY 2021 of $35.8 million in revenue. Conversely, on the expenditure side, we balanced to the revenues at $35.8 million. From a big overview, we are looking at $3.4 million for city schools, $3.5 million for facilities and buildings, $4.9 million for public safety, $18.4 million for transportation and access, $680,000 for parks and rec, $4 million for housing and affordable housing, and the rest for economic development, technology infrastructure, and other governmental projects. We are going to talk about each of these in a little bit more detail. For the city schools, the $3.4 million is going into lump sum accounts that are allocated out through joint meetings with school staff and city staff on projects that are identified each year. A couple of things this year were modular classrooms, Buford envelope restoration, pedestrian lighting and school security, and HVAC stuff. I am not sure what has been identified for the priority projects for this year. That’s a joint effort between school and city staff. For facilities and buildings, half of the $3.5 million is to address the indoor air quality corrections at the Smith Aquatic Center. The rest of this goes into a lump sum that city staff, through a process of allocation, uses that money to address improvements that address health and safety, code compliance, or things of that nature. For public safety, this is general district court, which is $3.1 million. That’s the first half of that project. That relates to the joint agreement with the county and also addresses the parking garage that is also in the CIP this year. The fire and EMS apparatus are one ambulance, one fire truck, mobile data computers, and portable radios. For Transportation and Access, there are a whole host of things that are listed. Some of the larger items include the West Main Street project, the parking garage, the Belmont Bridge project, and undergrounding the utilities. The rest is a sundry of things that are listed. For Parks and Recreation, there is a small amount of money for schools, parks, and playgrounds, parks and trail acquisition, tree planting, the downtown mall infrastructure, and work at Darden Towe Park. For housing, we completed our commitment for phase I of the Friendship Court project 6 development. It was not funded last year. The CRHA funding was funded at $1.5 million. We kept the rental assistance and the rehab at the same levels as last year. For technology and infrastructure, that’s offset by the peg fees we receive. There is city-wide IT infrastructure account, which is going to be used to address IT infrastructure. Other governmental projects included the home energy conservation grant and city-wide fee study. We will be keeping things up to date for each of the work sessions. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The Belmont Bridge project was not in the projections for 5 years. What changed with the Belmont Bridge project? Krisy Hammill – We will be coming back to Council with the formal appropriation for the rest of the project in an attempt to get a head of that. We included what we knew or what we think will be the local dollar part. That was included as part of the CIP. It is a large amount, and we tried to get it in here. Parts of it have been in over time, but the final part of the project is coming to a head. We know that this is roughly what the local dollars will look like. We added to the budget this year. Commissioner Green – Can you go over the funding for the Belmont Bridge that is not locally funded? Krisy Hammill – It is largely state and federal funded. We can get you that breakdown. Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director for NDS – The breakdown is 50% from the federal government, 26% from the state government, and 24% is locally funded. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The ambulance was not in the projection last year. Why does it appear now? Krisy Hammill – That was a request made through the fire department. They do have a multi-year replacement schedule. I am not sure if their replacement plans changed. It was not in last year, but it is in this year. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Downtown TARA was not in the projection last year. Why does it appear now? Krisy Hammill – That was a new request this year. Paul Oberdorfer – That’s divided into three phases. The first phase would be public engagement. The second phase would be engineering the plans for bid. The third phase would be construction. It’s an outcome of the threat and risk assessment that was conducted in 2018. There will be some decisions that will have to be made by Council and the administration in terms of what we want to do to protect the downtown mall and manage the pedestrian and vehicular interface on the crossings. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Why is there new funding for the Smith Aquatic Center? 7 Paul Oberdorfer – The Smith Aquatic Center has been an ongoing project to determine what the air quality issues were. Over the course of the past nine months, we have had engineering firms come in and evaluate the fluid dynamics in the building space, inside the sealed envelope of the building and come up with mechanical corrections need to be made to the systems. They’re developing the technical specification for the equipment. That $1.5 million will be for purchase and installation. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Why is there new funding for the East High Street signalization? Paul Oberdorfer – That was an addition to the smart scale project. That was outside the scope. The original scope just had timing signal included in it. This is a local match to replace the signals. Mayor Walker called City Council to order for the opening of public comments. ii. Public Comment Sunshine Manthon – Executive Director of the Piedmont Hosing Alliance. Standing in front of the Commission as a representative of Charlottesville Albemarle Affordable Housing Coalition. A person working a full time job cannot afford a modest 2 bedroom rental home. The condition is worse than most in our community. Centuries of policy and discrimination have created a calcified stratification in society. We need sustained $10 million for the next five years. Peter Krebs – You have heard of the importance of bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure. Trying to build a network of sidewalks and bike paths is difficult with the slow trickle. We are not going to get very far with the slow trickle of funds. Increase the funding for sidewalks, bike baths, and trails. Bill Emory – Sent the Commission an article about the Emerald Ash Bore. The Tree Commission had hoped to get $75,000 in the CIP to fight the Emerald Ash Bore. I would like for the Commission to restore the $75,000 to fight the Emerald Ash Bore. Andrew Jones – Thank you for the past leadership on bike and pedestrian past investments in infrastructure. Would like to see increased funding for bike and pedestrian. Saw wife hit by a car. Some of the most dangerous streets are the streets of Charlottesville. Larry Scott/Shelia Herlihy – Supports the full funding of the CAHF, Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. The current CIP only allocates $800,000 for the CAHF and the following years have zero dollars in the CAHF. We fully support the full $3 million in the CAHF. Please support fully funding the CAHF. Athena Cleveland/Oscar Cleveland – Habitat for Humanity homeowner. Before owning, I rented and the rent was double the mortgage. I was behind a month on the rent. Oscar: 8 My mom is not as stressed out as she was with rent. Don’t want other families to have to go through this. Elizabeth Emory – Pastor of New Beginnings Christian Church. I am here in full support of the CAHF. Desperate to find rentals for our church members. Charlottesville is becoming a community for only the wealthy. Vote for an increase in the CAHF. Peggy Van Yahres – We know that the community values our parks. Disappointed in the decrease in the bondable projects total about $200,000. We hope to build The Grove at McIntire Park that will serve as the launching pad for a central park. We ask that you keep implementing the master plans. Ella Jordan – Here to speak about the Grove at McIntire Park. Concerned about the funding that should take in all city priorities. How could parks be decimated in the current CIP? How has the past money been spent? Is there a balance for East McIntire Park? Kimberley Fontaine – Director for Interfaith Ministries. Here to provide you with my observations. Stunned at the infinity of affordable housing groups. Consensus of most people that there is a housing crisis. We receive hundreds of calls from people unable to pay rent. The lack of affordable housing is causing risks to health. Jake Mooney – The city needs to find money in the budget for affordable housing. Speaking out against the construction of the parking garage. Construction of the parking garage is climate change denial. Give the county the surface lot at Market Street and 7th Street and spots in the Market Street Garage. Jill Trischman-Marks – Executive Director of McIntire Botanical Garden at 200 Garrett Street. MBG is located on 8.5 acres in McIntire Park East. A parking lot and trails were included in the master plan. Only needs funding to move forward. MBG is unable to move forward with the garden until the infrastructure is in place. Matthew Gillikin – I would like to see more funding for affordable housing and more funding for alternative modes of transportation. I would also like to see the West Main Street streetscape delayed or gotten rid of. Does not think that Dominion is going to give us the money to underground the utilities. It’s the most expensive thing on the CIP budget. Carl Schwarz – Here on behalf of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The reason for the cuts is for the surplus in the accounts for the work. The cuts to those accounts will lead to a pause in the construction and planning of the plan. We supported finishing the streetscape plan on West Main Street. Brandon Collins – Work for PHAR, the Public Housing Association of Residents. PHAR is federally recognized board for public housing in Charlottesville. The Housing Authority and Planning Commission has contributed to the crisis of affordable housing. The affordable housing fund needs to be fully funded. 9 Nancy Carpenter – I hope that the Council is listening to the stories. I am hoping that the Planning Commission addresses the affordable housing crisis. People have to use public money to address affordable housing and redevelopment. We use subpar construction materials. Let’s put more money into affordable housing and redevelopment. Dave Norris – Here to speak about affordable housing funding and redevelopment funding. Thank you to the Council and Planning Commission for investing $3 million for the affordable housing for 5 years. The money has been used for more affordable housing. Removing the money is debilitating. There is a wealth gap. Please do not retreat from your commitment to affordable housing. Paul Josey – Chair of the Charlottesville Tree Commission. The ash bore is killing the ash trees in Charlottesville. This bug kills all ash trees that it comes into contact with. We have just $50,000 in funding for the ash bore. Don Gathers – We are a city and community in contradiction with itself. Hard to be a green community when building a new parking garage. If we can build a parking garage, we can fully fund affordable housing and the CAHF. Doesn’t matter how many bike lanes are here, if people can’t afford to live here. Jay Hipen – The area has grown significantly in terms of traffic and population. The infrastructure has not kept pace. Daughter was killed in New York. Daughter was injured by a driver in Charlottesville. I also have been injured while on a bike ride in Charlottesville. Our streets need to be safer for pedestrians and traffic. Louisa Calendario (sp) – Amplify the voice of the earlier speakers. I would like City Council to fully fund affordable housing and the CAHF for the full 5 years. Joy Johnson – Public housing resident. Please support the affordable housing fund. You are going to see later tonight what affordable housing funding would look like. Cutting affordable housing funding is not the answer. Emily Dreyfus – Remind of the housing needs assessment conducted last year. Those most in need are those in low income. The current draft budget cutting in affordable housing needs to be reversed. Displacement is running wild and most impacting black families. Josh Carp – Some of the issues being talked about tonight are not complicated. If we are going to cut affordable housing, that is only going to increase displacement and immoral. If you build a parking garage, it will only increase the acceleration of the planet destruction. Raise the taxes of doctors, lawyers, and others. iii. Commissioner Discussion & Motion Commissioner Solla-Yates – Something that I have been trying to understand are the details of our agreement with the county. If the City does not meet its obligations under the 10 agreement, the county gets the parking garage on Market Street and the lot on Market Street. I see the word ‘or.’ My understanding is that one or the other, but not both. Am I wrong? Lisa Robertson, City Attorney – I cannot answer that question at the moment. I do not have an interpretation for you. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I asked John Blair this question last week. He said that it was definitely ‘or.’ Chairman Mitchell – I do want to thank Dr. Richardson. You acknowledged the role of the Planning Commission in this process and that is greatly appreciated. We are looking forward to working very closely with you, as we go through iterations of the budget. Thank you for that acknowledgement. Motion: Commissioner Solla-Yates – I would like to move that the CIP Budget, as presented, is not recommended. We would like to supplement the budget with the following amendments. (Seconded by Commissioner Heaton). There was a previous motion and a point of order. The motion was reworded with guidance from the Chairman and the City Attorney’s Office. Each additional amendment would have to be voted on by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dowell – The first amendment that I would like to see is that we fully fund the affordable housing fund. Chairman Mitchell – That would mean that we fully fund for FY 2021. Commissioner Dowell – I am also looking to fully fund the affordable housing fund over the five year span. It needs to be funded for each year. Chairman Mitchell – It is a little complicated. The CIP is something that we can speak to that way. It might be a little more difficult to talk to redevelopment that way. Commissioner Dowell – I recommend that we fully fund the affordable housing fund for FY 2021. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Can we not talk about the full five years? Chairman Mitchell – With the redevelopment, it becomes more complicated. If we do 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 at $3 million, we will have committed $18 million. Council has committed to $15 million. I am keen in making certain that we don’t lose money in the redevelopment fund. Commissioner Dowell – I would like to make a motion that we fully fund CAHF as currently allocated and proposed over the course of the five years. 11 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Last year, they tried to zero out the CAHF and put it into the individual budgets. We said that we wanted to put it back into the CAHF or some into CAHF to be flexible. There is value in having those flexible dollars for this coming fiscal year. Later in the outlook, it will make sense to directly allocate to the sub-accounts. If we could phrase it like ‘CAHF and its related line items,’ that would make sense for later years. Ms. Creasy – If you look at page 4 of the draft budget, under CAHF are the categories that the funds from the original have been pulled out into different categories. It sounds like you might be saying ‘to move forward with the amounts as noted.’ Commissioner Stolzenberg – I think that we need to up the amount from what is currently proposed. Put the extra money for this year into the flexible CAHF fund. For out years, we should just make a statement about the total amount of funding rather than the breakdown between those three. Ms. Creasy – I know what Mr. Stolzenberg is noting specifically for FY 2021. There is an amount for the subtotal of all of the affordable housing categories there. The Commission wants that to be fully funded, which was at $3 million. Any amount not listed in the sub­ categories to go into the general category funding. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In the summary, the CAHF line only includes CAHF supplemental rental assistance and housing rehab. Friendship Court is broken out into a different one. Chairman Mitchell – We are getting into the weeds and doing staff’s work. What we need is a high level motion. Commissioner Dowell – My high level motion is that we fully fund CAHF and fully fund CAHF as currently allocated. Chairman Mitchell – Let’s make one motion for CAHF and a motion for CRHA. Commissioner Dowell – I would like to fully fund the CAHF for FY 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. Ms. Creasy – I am not sure which paper we are looking at. What would be fully funded. There was one definition noted that the numbers in last year’s CIP for 21, 22, 23, and 24. That was one way fully funded was defined at one point. Commissioner Lahendro – In last year’s CIP, the funding for CAHF was $800,000. That’s what is being proposed for this year. It’s dropped off for the subsequent years. The supplemental rental assistance is $750,000 for this current year. It’s proposed to go up to $900,000 and stay at $900,000 for five years. The housing rehabilitation is at $500,000 for this year and stay at $500,000 for the next five years. The only one proposed to be cut is 12 the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund. It is being cut starting in FY 2022. Our recommendation is to continue funding the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund at next year’s level for the next five years. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It was cut to $750,000 from the originally proposed $900,000 as part of last year’s budget cycle because they had to come up with extra funds to cover the budget gap. It was always planned to be $900,000. Ms. Creasy – I will also note that as the years continue forth here, the numbers vary in different categories depending on different commitments. In the other categories, the overall housing commitment varies depending on different commitments. FY 2022, there is an amount there. All of the housing commitments add up to something that is three times this year’s housing commitment. In the next year, it drops down. The following year, it goes to the highest point. The overall commitment drops down the following year. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Would it be bad to suggest $3 million? Ms. Creasy – I would ask the Planning Commission to clarify which years that would be for. There are a higher number of commitments in other years. Commissioner Stolzenberg – My understanding of the request is that it is exclusive of Friendship Court, which is driving the fluctuations because it is every other year. That’s $3 million for CAHF and related accounts, excluding Friendship Court and CRHA. Commissioner Solla-Yates – This is my intent. Chairman Mitchell – The affordable housing fund is what you are focusing on. That is the line item below project. In FY 2020, we adopted $800,000. We proposed $800,000 for this fiscal year. Are you asking for $800,000 for FY 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25? Commissioner Dowell – I originally said through 2025. I am comfortable with going through 2021 and 2022. We don’t know what we are going to need in that fund once the housing strategy is done. We know that we can’t have zeroes in the budget. Chairman Mitchell – Why are you looking to revise your motion? Ms. Creasy – Fully funding affordable housing means $800,000 added to the 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 columns. Commissioner Heaton – The motion is that we are not recommending the budget as presented. We don’t have to do the work for the Council. We are telling them this is why we are not recommending it, and the work is yet to be done. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The question on the CAHF item is that we don’t recommend it because in the out year projections it zeroes it out or because we want to increase it this year? 13 Motion to increase the amount of funding in the CAHF made by Commissioner Stolzenberg (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Amendment passed 6-0. Chairman Mitchell – The second amendment was redevelopment. The only thing that we need to amend is that we return to the original funding for 2021, which was $3 million. Motion to keep the funding at $3 million in redevelopment through 2022 and funding to be removed from 2025. Amendment passed 6-0. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to address the downtown mall TARA. That’s the threat and risk assessment for the downtown mall. That’s a concern on the safety of the crossings on the downtown mall. There is a lot of money in the budget, but not for this coming year. I am going to recommend a gap of one year between the initial study and the outlay for the hardware. My motion is to remove the funding for FY 22 and 23 (Motion seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 4-0 with two abstentions. Commissioner Stolzenberg made a motion to increase the amount of funding for solar panels for city and city school buildings to $125,000. There was no second of the motion. The motion did not pass. Commissioner Heaton – I would like to recommend to Council that the transportation and access improvement resources are insufficient to address the pedestrian and biking safety needs of the city and increased funding over previous funding levels (Seconded by Commissioner Green). Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Lahendro – I would recommend to Council that a line item be added to the Parks and Rec project lines for removal of emerald ash bore damaged trees (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 6-0 with one abstention. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would recommend to Council to remove the parking garage from FY 2022 and reduce the amount in FY 2021 to a level sufficient to find an alternate solution beyond a parking garage and keep the city commitment to the county. Commissioner Green – I am going to abstain from this vote. I do think that there is something else that can be done there. There needs to be some thought as to what we will do. I do believe that something other than a massive parking garage can go in that area. There are so many more options. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If you spend $10 million on a parking garage, you are asking every resident to pay $200 each to fund climate change Commissioner Stolzenberg – I move to reduce garage funding to the minimum level necessary to fulfill the commitment to the county, while pursuing creative solutions, such as public/private partnerships or alternative arrangements (Seconded by Commissioner Heaton). Motion passed 6-0 with one abstention. 14 Commissioner Solla-Yates motioned to reduce the funding for the Belmont Bridge. There was no second for the motion. The motion did not pass. Commissioner Green – I recommend staff research the question of zeroing out the bike and pedestrian projects, given the revenue from the scooter and bike program (Motion seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg). Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Motion to increase the funding for solar installation (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 4-2. Commissioner Green – Motion to have Council educate the Planning Commission on the projects within the CIP budget (Seconded by Commissioner Dowell). Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Solla-Yates motioned to delay the Smith Aquatic Center air quality corrections funding. Commissioner Solla-Yates withdrew his motion. Commissioner Stolzenberg – In looking at a place for cuts, street milling and paving gets a 17% increase in the 5 year outlook, after getting zeroed out for two years. Our pavement quality index is slightly below the national average. That’s not the highest priority if looking for funds to increase funding for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Commissioner Green – How is that not part of bike and pedestrian? Ms. Creasy – When they mill and pave, they put it back in the same condition. Bike improvement money goes into new facilities. Commissioner Stolzenberg – When we build bike infrastructure, we are often just putting in an additional line. Bicycles need real physical protection. Commissioner Dowell – What is our priority neighborhood that is coming up? Ms. Creasy – There is a schedule that is put forth. They time when those activities occur with other projects that are going on. They coordinate it in that manner. There are timeframes. Roads become degradated at certain times based on the amount of traffic. At the beginning of the season, they start putting together the paving list. It’s typically available online. 8. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Recommend Council look at possible reductions in the milling and paving budget line item (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 6-0 with one abstention. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to remove the third EMS ambulance. There was no second on the motion. The motion died. 15 Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to remove the undergrounding of utilities. There was a second by Commissioner Stolzenberg. The motion was withdrawn after getting a staff report regarding the undergrounding. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to delay the traffic light infrastructure. After a staff report, Commissioner Solla-Yates withdrew the motion. 9. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to delay the funding for building at Darden Towe Park until it has zoning clearance can be built (Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg). The motion passed 4-1 with two abstentions. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to delay funding for Economic Development Strategic Initiatives (Seconded by Commissioner Stolzenberg). Motion was defeated 4-2. Motion will not be recommended to City Council. Commissioner Green – Historic Resources got $50,000 for blight remediation. Ms. Creasy – There is currently a list of possible properties to go through the blight process. However, we have no funding in the fund. It has been used in the past for the remediation of blight. The house went through the blight process. In the end, it was blighted. The city did work to stabilize it. There ended up with a lien on the house. When the property is sold, it comes back and feeds into the fund. There was a discussion between the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the different areas that are being funded through the CIP funding and affordable housing. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to reduce the funding for intelligent transportation system. There was no second for the motion, and the motion died. Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to delay the funding for portable radio replacement for the police. After a report from the staff, the motion was withdrawn. Motion: Commissioner Heaton moved that the CIP Budget, as presented, is not recommended for approval by the City Council. The nine amendments listed above are the recommendations for the City Council to look at and review. The motion passed 6-1. The chair recessed the meeting for five minutes. 2. SP19-00009 – 900-1000 1st Street South – Riverbend Development, as the owner’s agent, has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) request to allow private outdoor parks, playgrounds, and/or basketball courts per City Code Section 34-420, and a reduction of the minimum required setbacks per City Code Section 34-162(a), at 900­ 1000 1st Street S, also identified on City Real Property Tax Map 26 Parcel 115 (“Subject 16 Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on 1st Street S and Elliott Avenue. The site is zoned R-3 Multifamily Residential. The property is approximately 7.94 acres or 345,866 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan calls for High-Density Residential development at densities greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-andservices/ 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 petition may contact Carrie Rainey by email (raineyc@charlottesville.org) of by telephone (434-970-3453). i. Staff Report Carrie Rainey, City Planner - The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) requests a Special Use Permit to allow for private outdoor recreational facilities, including parks, playgrounds, and basketball courts per Section 34-420 and a reduction of the minimum required yard setbacks to 5 feet per Section 34-162(a). The redevelopment of the subject property is Phase 2 of CRHA’s South First Street overall redevelopment plan. The Phase 1 development included 62 multifamily units and a community space, and was approved in March 2019. The Phase 2 redevelopment proposes replacing the existing 58 multifamily residential units with 113 new units, a community center, and space for CRHA offices in addition to the private outdoor recreational facilities. These other uses are allowed by-right in the R-3 Multifamily residential zone. The proposed development as shown in the application plan requires a Critical Slope Waiver prior to approval. The applicant has submitted a waiver application, which is not the Commission’s regular agenda tonight for a recommendation to City Council. Regarding the impacts of the private outdoor recreational facilities per the factors of Section 34-157, staff believes the facilities will be harmonious with the existing neighborhood and align with several goals of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. The facilities’ intended users are the residents of the property, and therefore will not increase traffic or parking congestion in the neighborhood. No impacts due to dust, odors, fumes, and vibrations are anticipated from outdoor recreational facilities. Minimal noise may be generated from recreational facilities, with children playing outside, but staff does not believe the impact to be adverse. The lighting of the outdoor recreational facilities will be governed by the Outdoor Lighting regulations if fixtures meet the applicability threshold of Section 34-1001. However, additional conditions can be placed to ensure all lighting complies with the regulations, regardless of applicability. The applicant has indicated a phasing plan will be created to minimize temporary displacement of existing residents during the redevelopment of the site. While the inclusion of outdoor recreational facilities does result in less land available for additional affordable units, staff believes the layout proposed provides a higher-quality and livable community for residents while still providing an increase in overall affordable units in development. As part of this SUP application, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the required yard setbacks to 5 feet. The application narrative states this will allow for 17 better utilization of the buildable area of the site, create a more comfortable street frontage, and allow for better outdoor amenity spaces within the development. Staff notes the property line for the subject property is approximately five (5) feet behind the existing public sidewalk on 1st Street S, and the application plan proposes residential units along the street with six (6) average front porches, resulting in building façades approximately 16 feet from the public sidewalk (with front porches approximately 10 feet away). The property line on Elliott Avenue is approximately 15 feet behind the public sidewalk, and the proposed building façade is at least 10 feet from this property line. Staff believes these setbacks are appropriate, as they are close enough to activate the street while deep enough to be in line with the existing neighborhood character. Staff finds that the proposed private outdoor recreational facilities, for which the SUP is requested, could contribute to many goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In this regard, staff finds the proposal conforms with the general guidelines and policies contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, per Z.O. Sec. 34-42(a)(1). Staff finds the reduction in required yard setbacks allow adequate space on site for the location of the private outdoor recreational facilities, per Section 34­ 162(a)(2). In addition, staff finds a reduction in required yard setbacks could alleviate impacts to Critical Slopes found on the site (see Critical Slope Waiver Application for more information), which may be desirable per Section 34-162(a)(2). Should the Planning Commission find it appropriate to recommend approval of the SUP request as presented, staff proposes the following conditions are considered: No improvements shall be commenced prior to approval of a critical slope waiver request, approval of a final site plan, and approval of a permit authorizing land-disturbing activities pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 10-9. All outdoor lighting fixtures in the outdoor recreation areas shall be full cut-off luminaires. ii. Applicant Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development, Neighborhood Planners – I want to start with this image that shows and highlights the unique resident led redevelopment process these women have undergone for designing the South First Street neighborhood. Since June, they have devoted their time and have put in over 550 hours in designing this neighborhood. We are so excited to share the community with you. This does give you a brief overview of the site. You can see the phasing and how low density the development is at this time with only 58 units. At the end of Phase 1 and Phase 2, we will have tripled the density of affordable housing on this site, while avoiding the environmentally sensitive areas and providing a lot of green space and activation at the street. The following neighborhood planners spoke with the applicant. Here is a brief summary of what each neighborhood planner said. Eliza Elijah – These are the characteristics: appropriate sized apartments, good neighborhood design, minimal multi-story constructions, open space for children, provide 18 yard area for the unit, and use the landscape. Deborah Cooper – We like parking in the back of the house and each apartment has a parking space. We have open spaces and porches. We have air conditioners in the windows. We like the handicapped ramp and our park. Audrey Oliver – The new design process began with a blank slate. We added the side constraints. The critical slope and setbacks were used to determine the developed areas. We can pull the design away from the critical slopes. Neighborhood Planner #1 – Established the various character parts of the site. The areas of the critical slope translate to the creek and wooded zones. This is going to be an amenity of the site. This is how we broke everything down with the spaces and arrangements of the houses. Three elements emerged: a community center, small apartment buildings along the wooded creek area, and townhome along First Street to activate the South First Street frontage. Patricia Howard – The resident planners began creating draft master plans to see how the various elements might fit. We also had to face the reality of parking and accessibility. We decided to create a group master plan. This is the resident designed master plan for South First Street. The site plan represents the engineer’s master plan. We are pleased to share our vision for our new neighborhood with the Planning Commission. iii. Public Comment Joy Johnson – Support the work that the work the residents have done – Extremely proud of the work that these women have done – Lower income communities coming out and present in front of the Planning Commission Patricia Howard – I do want to thank the Planning Commission for listening to us and not shutting us down. We really do need this. Eliza Elijah – I have been working with the ladies on the design. I am just proud to be a part of this group. iv. Commissioner Discussion & Motion Motion: Commissioner Green – I move to recommend approval of this application st for a Special Use Permit in the R‐3 zone at 900‐1000 1 Street S (Tax Map 26 Parcel 115) to permit private outdoor recreational facilities (parks, playgrounds, basketball courts) with the following listed conditions from staff: 1. No improvements should be commenced prior to the approval of the Critical Slope Waiver request. 2. Approval of a final site plan. 3. Approval of a permit authorizing land-disturbing activities pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 10-9. 19 4. All outdoor lighting fixtures in the outdoor recreation areas shall be full cut-off luminaires. (Motion seconded by Commissioner Dowell). The motion passed 7-0 and recommended approval by the Council. 3. CP19 - 00002 – Fontaine Avenue Streetscape Concept - Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the proposed Fontaine Avenue Streetscape conceptual design plan, for a planned improvement project located on Fontaine Avenue between Ray C. Hunt Drive and Jefferson Park Avenue, to determine if the general location, character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. The 4Neighborhood Development Services, 610 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia, Monday – Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m i. Staff Report Kyle Kling, Project Manager – Back in the summer of 2018, the city brought on RK&K to help with the preliminary engineering and design effort for this smart scale project. Over the course of the past 16 months, we have been working through those efforts, including a detailed public outreach phase. We have a preferred concept for the corridor. We are here to present that preferred concept to the Planning Commission for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. ii. Applicant Owen Peery, RK & K Engineers – We are on board with the city to design this project and come up with a solution for Fontaine Avenue. We are going to give you an overview of the project and review how this complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The project starts at the Fontaine Research Park and extends to Jefferson Park Avenue. We are working on the entry corridor of Fontaine Avenue. This is being funded by the smart scale application that was submitted in 2015. This is a mixture of federal and VDOT state money funding this project. You can see the breakdown for preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction. The project total would be $11.7 million. It has been thought about for a number of years. There was a study done back in 2005. We are looking for a context sensitive entry point into the city that is friendly to pedestrians, transit, neighborhood oriented, improves the quality of life, and improves the multi-modal opportunities in the corridor. What is different? We think different about streets today than back in 2005. Since that time, the Charlottesville Transit Study, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Streets That Work Plan have been done. Some things have changed since that plan came out. Based on the bike plan, the Charlottesville’s Bike/Ped Plan, Streets That Work Plan, and the VDOT Smart Scale Application, we have been working on the following principles: Create a complete street, Increase Safety and Comfort for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, and Beautify the Corridor as a Gateway. Those are our underlying principles that we are trying to design to. Some of the benefits that we see include increase opportunities for walking, bicycling, and the use of transit, connections to proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities to Fontaine Research Park and beyond, and 20 improve access to: US-29, UVA, and University Health System. We are about 30% design. We are trying to get conceptual and get approvals from the Planning Commission and City Council. Once that happens, we plan to go into more detailed design. You can see the things that are coming up. This is the outreach that we have done. Starting in late 2018, we have had 4 steering committee meetings, we have had a public workshop, we have had a public open house, we have had meetings with staff to go over key issues, we have met with the PLACE Task force twice, and we met with the Planning Commission in a work session in July. Amy Nelson, RK & K Engineers – At the first steering committee meeting, we asked everybody to identify the goal, concerns, and opportunities they had for developing the corridor. The main thing that we heard that they wanted a sense of place that was safer for all users. They wanted to make sure that we took site limitations and right of way into consideration. They also wanted to make sure that we connected the gap between the city limits and the Fontaine Research Park. They found the opportunities to create a gateway into Charlottesville and implement some storm water management practices. A couple of things of note were that on street parking was not a priority for most of the steering committee members. There was also a need to account for trash and deliveries on the corridor. For public outreach, we had two public meetings. For the second meeting, we stepped up our outreach. We reached out to a lot of people, including the University of Virginia. From our first meeting, we found feedback started to mimic what we had heard with the steering committee. People wanted safe pedestrian crossings at side streets, add / widen sidewalks, provide more green space, preserve trees, and provide safe routes for bicycles. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes were rated extremely high. Additional on street parking was not very important for them. This is the on street parking on the Fontaine corridor, not the adjacent streets. We met with the steering committee and had them help lay out an example street. The steering committee chose not to add on street parking in the street layout. This was not the opinion of every steering committee member, but it was the overall consensus. For the second public open house, we added the emergency vehicle access, after meeting with the fire marshal, and that was rated as high importance. Owen Peery – In looking at how we get pedestrians around and through this corridor, we are trying to give better pedestrian access, especially at Mimosa Drive. This is a key connection. A lot of the residents down Summit Street and UVA shuttle go up Mimosa Street. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic here. This is right near the fire station. What we envision is a full crosswalk with a protected median island with the blinking pedestrian lights. We tried to divide this corridor into thirds. We have provided three pedestrian crossing locations. The crossing at Piedmont Avenue is in the middle of the corridor. With the extra real estate, we can provide a refuge island in the middle of the street and pedestrian crossing. At Lewis Street, we still have a median island. We are in a different configuration. We are not able to provide those bump outs on the outside. We are not down to picking trees or plants. Megan Nelson – For Economic Development we are providing a sense of place. For mixed use, we are enhancing pedestrian connectivity throughout the corridor. For regional 21 cooperation, we are having Albemarle County and UVA have been active on the Steering Committee. For community facilities, the team has been working with the Fire Chief. We have been working with the utility infrastructure. We will maintain existing services to the neighborhood and businesses. We will make sure to have access to the current and future trails for pedestrians and cyclists. We are helping to sustain the businesses. We are making sure that there is access along the corridor to the businesses. With the environment, we are working to implement green infrastructure to storm water practices that are sustainable and fit within the corridor concept. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Can you provide some updates from the work session? Amy Nelson – We have adjusted the corridor a little bit and provided the renderings. The bike lanes were a little more in flux. We looked to what fit more within the context. We looked at the different kinds of bike lanes. Working with the fire department, they really need to access the street. With the University so close to this corridor, it is important for emergency vehicles can get there. Commissioner Solla-Yates – We talked about filling the gap across the county line to the Research Park. Owen Peery – We are working with VDOT on that. The application specifically says that it goes to the city limit. We have written to VDOT. It doesn’t make much sense to do that. Somebody is going to have to come back and do a lot of construction again. We have gone to VDOT and told them that we need to transition to get to the full trails and facilities at Ray C. Hunt Drive. They have come back with some conditions. They are not going to treat it as an out of scope item. Their conditions include that if we go over budget, somebody else has to pay the difference. Their conditions include an agreement with Albemarle County that they’re OK with us going 400 feet into the county to finish the project. VDOT will own that road at the end and will have a little more oversight than they might with your street. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Control of left turns on the main right of way? Owen Peery – We have tried to keep the corridor as intact as it is today, so that we have full access to the neighborhoods. We have gotten into all of the access control ideas. We are going to have to look at some of the businesses along the corridor. We haven’t gotten to that detailed level of design. There is some access control that we are going to put on the table to be considered as we move forward. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Widening the right of way on JPA? Owen Peery – We will be widening it a little bit, but not to the extent that we create so much damage. We need slivers of easement or right of way. 22 Commissioner Stolzenberg – We discussed the makeup of the people, who came to your public engagement session at the PLACE Design Task Force. Did you reach any students in your later engagement? Amy Nelson – We submitted fliers to the University Housing Development that were nearby. We worked with University Transit and had fliers on all of the buses. There was also the message board in front of the fire station. We had a couple opportunities. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Do you feel the protections are sufficient for a bike lane? Owen Peery – It’s within the parameters of a normal buffer strip and it’s within what’s listed as the possible buffer strip width in the pedestrian bicycle master plan. The buffer strip could be wider. We have looked at ways to separate it vertically. One of the issues with this corridor are the number of driveways. We have that competing against us putting up something more tangible. Vertical impediments are things that we have looked at, and we have not shut the door on any of the treatments. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What is the solution for trash trucks and delivery trucks blocking the street? Owen Peery – They could use the extra pavement to get out of the street. It would be a very temporary condition. That’s a reality. Trash cans are going to sit on the curb, unless we figure out a new way people to get their trash picked up. Those trucks do move pretty fast down the corridor for part of our consideration with how we might treat that buffer strip. Commissioner Lahendro – You are showing us a concept that depends on the purchase of right of way on both sides of the street and no consideration of the utilities above ground or below ground that’s out there. What could this look like if those things become a factor? Owen Peery – We have planned those out. They are going to go behind the sidewalk and will have right of way easements for those. They will fit in our right of way. On the north side, the overhead power poles will likely go in the landscape buffer strip with smaller trees and higher trees on the south side. We haven’t discussed where the utilities are going. Most transportation projects that we work with do require right of way. We are trying to minimize damage and not destroy the neighborhood. It is going to be tough tie in all of those driveways with all of the new sidewalks. iii. Public Comment Thomas Panenski – House owner since 1997 on Fontaine Avenue. There is a robust urban forest as you enter Charlottesville. What is not addressed in this project is the reduction of that urban forest. I have seen no mention of what is going to happen with that urban forest. Trees remove the pollutants from the air. This goes down the entire length of Fontaine Avenue. (Time yielded from another public speaker). All of these trees are going to be gone. What trees are going to be used in this project? It is going to be difficult to pull out 23 of the driveway. I was almost ran over on Fontaine Avenue by a van a couple of weeks ago. Please reduce the speed to 30 miles per hour. Edward Mendez – I own three properties in the Fry Springs neighborhood. My concern is the removal of parking directly impacts those on Robertson Avenue. These streets are simply packed. I promote bicycle use. The majority of those parking are commuters. Fontaine Research Park is maybe at 50% full. If you are going to eliminate parking, there are going to be consequences. Peter Krebbs – I have been following this project since the beginning. The weakness of this project is that it does not encompass the Research Park. VDOT is interested in extending the project to the Research Project. iv. Commissioner Discussion & Motion Commissioner Palmer – The design strikes a good balance of bike/pedestrian amenities and street trees and provides for that traffic flow. The elimination of the on street parking is commendable. It improves the site lines and the safety of that street. One of the nice things about it is that you can connect into it on Mimosa Drive. The additional connection with Fontaine and the recreational trails is a great benefit. Commissioner Green – This falls in with everything that we have been talking about with regards to the Comprehensive Plan. We have to get bike lanes in this area and the roads are not wide enough. This is that growth area where we are talking about making more pedestrian connectivity. I am hopeful that we can lower some speed limits. I am in favor, even though this is not the final design. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What is the consequence of this decision? What does it mean if it is not in accordance of the Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Creasy – If it was deemed not in accordance, then we would look at potential adjustments to see if that was possible. They have pointed out numerous things that it supports within the specific plan and noted in the transportation aspects of the comp plan. We have had multiple designs over the years for a similar project. This project is a lot less impactful than what had been worked through in the past. This is going through the process of confirming that, so that they can continue to move forward through the process. Commissioner Green – What part of it doesn’t match the comp plan? Commissioner Stolzenberg – The comp plan and appendices call for safe bicycle infrastructure and making our roads safe for all users. Having intersections with bike lanes that are shared with vehicle lanes falls short of that standard. The bike and pedestrian master plan does have a provision, which allows unprotected bike lanes, when necessary. Commissioner Green – Our streets are what they are. 24 Commissioner Stolzenberg – I recognize that we are not at a final design. Hopefully, these elements of the design can change in the future to offer real physical protections for bikes and other personal vehicles Commissioner Heaton – Are there other traffic calming features? Owen Peery – We have not considered all of the traffic calming features. We are just getting to conceptual design. We have talked about changing the pavement. We are going to plant trees. There are treatments that we are still talking about and have not gotten to yet. We did do a speed study and they are actually at the speed limit. Commissioner Dowell – I am concerned about the environmental impact and the eminent domain. I don’t see a whole lot of on street parking. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I did bring up speed reductions at the last work session. That makes total sense to me. Safety is a key issue here. Reducing speed will reduce noise. Lisa Robertson – The state law has a process. To reduce the speed as part of a project, there needs to be an accompanying engineering study that says the design of the road has been changed in a way that requires the speed to be reduced in order for it be safe. You have to get an engineering study that backs up any decision to change the speed limit. The speed has to be validated by an engineering study. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I shared the concerns about bike safety. Commissioner Lahendro – I will vote for this as complying with the comprehensive plan. It’s going to need to have the kind of trees and coverage that the comprehensive plan calls for. Motion: Commissioner Green - I move that the proposed Fontaine Avenue Streetscape Project concept’s, located on Fontaine Avenue between the City limit and Jefferson Park Avenue in the City of Charlottesville, general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. (Seconded by Commissioner Lahendro) Motion passed 7-0. 4. SP19-00008 –Chick-fil-A Barracks Road Drive Through – Landowner Federal Realty Investment Trust by its contract purchaser Chick-fil-A, Inc. is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-796, to authorize a specific land use (drive-through window for a restaurant) for property identified on City Tax Map 1 as a portion of Parcel 1 (“Subject Property”), having an area of approximately 0.801 acre. The Subject Property is zoned “URB” (Urban Corridor Mixed Use District) with Entrance Corridor Overlay and has frontage on Emmet Street North. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Mixed Use development. Information pertaining to request may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood­ 25 developmentservices or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 605 East Main Street. Persons interested in this SUP application may contact NDS Planner Joey Winter by e-mail (winterj@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3991). i. Staff Report Joey Winter, City Planner - This item is a Special Use Permit request to authorize a restaurant drive through window at 1000 Emmet Street North in the Barracks Road Shopping Center. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Burger King at this location and construct a Chick-fil-A restaurant with a drive through window. A modification to the front setback along Emmet Street is also being recommended due to utility issues. This site is zoned URB with an Entrance Corridor overlay and is approximately 0.8 acres. The property is further identified on a portion of City Real Property Tax Map 1 Parcel 1. The General Land Use Plan calls for Mixed Use development. The proposed restaurant use is allowed by- right in the URB zoning district. A Special Use Permit is required to authorize the drive through window pursuant to City Code Section 34-796. So to be clear: Planning Commission review of this Special Use Permit request should focus solely on whether a restaurant drive through window is appropriate for this location. It should not focus on whether a restaurant is appropriate for this location or whether Chick-fil-A is the appropriate type of restaurant. The Subject Property lies in the Route 29 North [Emmet Street] Entrance Corridor, so the Entrance Corridor Review Board made a recommendation on this request. Earlier tonight as the E.R.B., you all recommended this proposed drive through window will not have an adverse impact on the Entrance Corridor. City Code Section 34-162 allows City Council to modify yard regulations as an SUP Condition. The City’s Utilities Engineer has recommended that the front yard regulation be modified to allow for access to the sanitary sewer line and storm sewer culverts that run across the front of the site. The recommended modification is that the maximum setback along Emmet Street North be changed from 30 feet to 92 feet. The proposed use is identical to the existing use of the site and is harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood and the Barracks Road Shopping Center. For context, on Emmet Street North between the Route 250 Bypass and the intersection with Massie Road, a distance of just over one mile, there are currently 11 businesses operating drive through windows - 6 restaurants, 4 banks, and 1 pharmacy. There are currently 5 businesses operating drive through windows in the Barracks Road Shopping Center, including the Burger King that currently occupies this site. Planning Commission received an email from a member of the public late this afternoon expressing concerns about this SUP request as it relates to traffic. The City Traffic Engineer went back and took another look at the application materials based on that email and offers the following two comments: 1) Regarding concern about Traffic Congestion from Emmet Street into the site: Because this site is interior to the Barracks Road Shopping Center, there will be very little noticeable impact on Emmet Street. Emmet Street has approximately 26 23,000 vehicles per day. Per the ITE trip generation manual, a fast food restaurant with drive-thru of this size will have approximately 2,200 vehicles per day. Out of 21 studies done, the maximum number of vehicles trips was around 2,900. The vast majority of these trips are captured by pass-by traffic (traffic that was already on the roadway and is not making a special trip). 2) Regarding concern about Traffic Congestion interior to Barracks Road Shopping Center: Traffic Engineering has worked with the designers to mitigate traffic congestion as much as reasonable. The current drive-thru for Burger King can stack approximately 10 vehicles. With the double drive-thru lane in conjunction with turning one of the other drive aisles into one way, the designers have been able to accommodate up to 60 cars without interrupting parking for other businesses. The General Land Use Plan calls for Mixed Use development. Per Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan, Mixed Use development should enhance pedestrian connections between commercial centers and public facilities. Therefore, steps should be taken to mitigate the drive through window’s adverse impacts on pedestrian connections in the vicinity of the site. City staff should have the ability to require additional safety measures be taken that protect pedestrian traffic from vehicle traffic related to the drive through window use… WHICH BRINGS US TO THE PROPOSED STAFF CONDITIONS. IF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS SUP, THREE CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED BY STAFF: CONDITION 1 – Would ensure safety measures be taken to protect pedestrian traffic coming from Emmet Street from vehicle traffic related to the drive through. CONDITION 2 – Would provide an additional pedestrian route from the internal parking area of the Barracks Road Shopping Center. It would ensure that this route is accessible as possible, and like CONDITION 1 would ensure safety measures be taken to protect pedestrian traffic from vehicle traffic related to the drive through. After consultation with the City Attorney, the applicant, and City staff, PROPOSED STAFF CONDITION 2 has been re-worded. I have that modified language here for you, the intent of the condition remains the same as stated in your packet. CONDITION 3 – Would modify the front yard regulation as recommended by the City Utilities Engineer THOSE ARE THE 3 CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF. Per City Code Section 34-157, Planning Commission may recommend other reasonable conditions of approval that would mitigate adverse impacts of the restaurant drive through window use. Again, please remember that the focus of discussion tonight should be the impacts of the drive through use and any conditions proposed tonight should be directly related to the drive through window. A couple other items that I wanted to address before I turn things over to the applicant: BIKE PARKING: One bicycle space for every one thousand square feet of public space is required per Section 34-881(3). SCOOTER PARKING: No scooter parking will be required at this site per the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 34). LANDSCAPING: the applicant will be required to comply with all landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 34). No landscaping waivers have been applied for (or granted) in relation this development. In conclusion: General Standards for Issuance of a Special Use Permit are 27 found in City Code Section 34-157 and are included in your packet. City Code Section 34­ 162 which allows the modification of yard regulations as a condition of a Special Use Permit is also included in your packet. Commissioner Lahendro – Will this come back to us at a later part of the process? Joey Winter – Whether or not a drive thru is appropriate in this location will not come back to you. None of the signage or design is under review tonight. That would come back to you at the site plan stage. ii. Applicant Ryan Gallagher, Bohler Engineering – We are proposing to tear down the existing Burger King and build a new Chick-Fil-A. It is inclusive of a drive-thru. We are working with staff to make traffic calming measures, as well as stacking measures. We do have the ability to increase the stacking to about 60 cars and 19 cars within the double drive thru. We have worked with staff to accommodate pedestrian connectivity and bicycle parking, especially from Emmet Street, and having an accessible route through ADA guidelines through the front entrance of the store. We are in agreement with the conditions put by staff for this SUP. The only caveat is that we are responsible within the lease line. We would have to speak with the owner of the land to make changes outside of the lease line. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The Barracks Road property owner is between the restaurant and the sidewalk. Is that correct? Ryan Gallagher – That is incorrect. It’s the public right of way abutting our adjacent lease area that is in our control to provide pedestrian access. We are concerned about the connectivity between our lease area, which is the front pad of the shopping center in front of the restaurant and the shopping center behind the restaurant. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What is Wise Street? When you say connections to the west, does that mean the parking area or the area by Zoe’s Kitchen? Ryan Gallagher – Wise Street is the actual entrance into the Barracks Road Shopping Center. To the west, would be the parking behind the Chick-Fil-A in between the Barnes and Noble and the Chick-Fil-A. iii. Public Hearing No Public Comment iv. Commissioner Discussion & Motion 28 Commissioner Solla-Yates – Are we building a sidewalk to nowhere? Joey Winter – This condition doesn’t specify exactly what the route is and the intent was to leave up to the applicant to determine how that can best be met. It would be part of the site plan. Staff would evaluate it and give feedback and make sure that it meets the code. This is a condition. We are not demanding that the applicant do something. The goal was to have pedestrian access and mitigate the impacts of having a drive thru. Commissioner Green – If mitigating the impact of the drive thru, what was the impact for the past drive thru? Why is it a problem to mitigate the impact? Joey Winter – This staff report and this analysis was in relation to this request before the Planning Commission. There is no existing SUP for the Burger King drive thru. My assumption is that was done before an SUP was required for a drive thru in this location. When you look at the standards in the code of an SUP, there are additional impacts of having a drive thru at this location. Commissioner Stolzenberg – On the north side of Wise Street, will they be required to bring that up to standard? Will they have to add sidewalk on the north side of Wise Street? Joey Winter – That is not a requirement of the code. The code requires improvements of sidewalks along a public right of way. Wise Street is not a public right of way. It’s an access easement. No setbacks apply on Wise Street because it is not a city street. The only setback for this property is the one on Emmet Street North. Commissioner Stolzenberg – If we are going to require a pedestrian route from Emmet Street, it’s just going to go a few feet up Wise Street. Joey Winter – The requirement is an accessible route from the public right of way, which would be Emmet Street North to the primary entrance of the restaurant. Commissioner Green – Your staff analysis says that this is in compliance with the comp plan because the property is designated for mixed use development within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. It will enhance small group interactions. How is this double drive thru enhancing the pedestrian access for it to meet the comp plan? Joey Winter – The analysis states the intent of a mixed use district. That first part lays out the intent of a mixed use district. The second provides some measures that can be taken. Commissioner Green – The idea behind this is that staff select what pieces of the comp plan comply. This particular goal talks about the pedestrian access and pedestrian enhancement and inter-connectivity for pedestrians. I am asking how you chose this particular one that this double drive thru is in compliance with the comp plan. 29 Joey Winter – The staff analysis is there. That was the staff’s analysis. If you have a different analysis, that is what you are entitled to and you have more authority. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Can you talk about the utility constraint? Joey Winter – If you look in the staff report, there is one utility line in red. In blue, there are the culverts for the sewer. That’s the reality of the situation that we are dealing with on the ground. It was brought to the attention of the utilities engineer. This was going to be an issue and this is the recommended solution to that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Even within the current building footprint, would it still be an issue? Joey Winter – The requirement is 30 feet. The Burger King that is there doesn’t meet that requirement. The additional setback was the recommended setback from utilities. Commissioner Green – Can you tell me what is the existing stacking at the Burger King? Joey Winter – The figures that I quoted were from the traffic engineer. The applicant might have their own. The stacking at the current Burger King can stack approximately ten vehicles. We are doubling the capacity. Commissioner Stolzenberg – On condition 1 requiring pedestrian accessible routes from public sidewalks to the primary entrance, as shown in the preliminary site plan, that it is an indirect route. Is it logical to change that to a direct accessible pedestrian route? Joey Winter – The site plan in your packet has not gone through staff review. These questions would be reviewed by staff. If it is not in compliance with the current ordinance, the staff would make that comment and they would be required to comply. Lisa Robertson – The building code will address that. The building code specifies that it be the most direct route. The building code is very strict about those things. It will be dealt with in the site plan. Motion: Commissioner Lahendro – On the basis that the proposal would serve public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, I move to recommend approval of this application for a special use permit to authorize a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the subject properties, subject to the following conditions: 1. Ensure safety measures be taken to protect pedestrian traffic coming from Emmet Street from vehicle traffic related to the drive through. 2. Provide an additional pedestrian route from the internal parking area of the Barracks Road Shopping Center. It would ensure that this route is accessible as possible. 3. Modify the front yard regulation as recommended by the City Utilities Engineer 30 (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 4-2. The Chairman recessed the meeting for five minutes before the final two items on the Planning Commission meeting agenda. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS 1. Critical Slopes Staff Report Carrie Rainey - Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) to allow for construction of 113 multifamily residential units, a community center, CRHA offices, surface parking lots, and private outdoor recreational facilities. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 2.02 acres or 26 percent of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Any slope whose grade is 25% or greater, and (a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than 20 feet, and its total area is 6,000 SF or greater, and (b) a portion of the slope is within 200 feet of a waterway. In order to grant a waiver, City Council is required to make one of two specific findings, either: (1) public [environmental] benefits of allowing disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed slope per City Code 34-1120(b)(6)(d.i), or (2) due to unusual physical conditions or existing development of a site, the critical slopes restrictions would unreasonably limit the use or development of the property, see City Code 34­ 1120(b)(6)(d.ii.). The applicant has provided justifications for both criteria, found in the application supplement. Both the Engineering and Environmental Departments noted difficulty assessing the full impacts of disturbance due to insufficient information provided in the application. Staff recommends the Planning Commission focuses on whether the public benefits of disturbance of the critical slope outweigh the public benefits of keeping the critical slopes undisturbed, as well as the potential negative erosion and stormwater impacts to environmentally sensitive areas that may be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Potential Conditions Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Critical Slope waiver, staff recommends the consideration of 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: i. Silt fence with wire reinforcement and six (6) feet stake spacing, and ii. 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 31 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. Require construction methods to phase construction of the buildings (the buildings adjacent to 1st Street to be constructed first) in order to create a better stabilized site and create a more efficient erosion measure. 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. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The applicant indicated differences on what is a critical slope. They show a pretty compelling graphic that compares the critical slope areas with existing disturbance. Where is the data coming from? Carrie Rainey – We go by the information provided and our city maps to assess what are critical slopes. We still believe the information is accurate, and I haven’t been provided with any information that those maps should be changed. Commissioner Green – Didn’t we do some kind of inventory when we passed the critical slope ordinance? Ms. Creasy – There was a map put in place that noted the criteria through the critical slopes and noted the areas that are considered. There is also language that if an applicant was to do their own study and provide that information to engineering for review, then that can be taken into account and may change the mapping conditions. There are maps associated with the code. That is the first place that one looks to see if critical slopes apply. If an applicant feels that map maybe in error, then they have the opportunity to do a study to provide data that notes otherwise. Chairman Mitchell – The November 8th submission was missing the location of Pollacks Creek on sheet 4 of the critical slope map. Have we received a revised application, which shows the location of Pollacks Creek? Is staff able to make a recommendation to the impact of this development, while under construction or after development, on Pollacks Creek. Jack Dawson, City Engineer – The contours are shown there. It’s pretty easy to infer where the stream is generally on that map. It’s more of a conceptual layout from the removal of the five storm drains. I don’t believe there is surveyed information on how deep those pipes are. There is also one sewer line that crosses the creek that is being removed. Those will impact the stream, in some regard. They are all showing a 20 foot width of disturbance. It’s not guaranteed that the 20 feet is going to be adequate. The depths of those pipes are unknown. It’s not clear how wide it needs to be. I don’t think showing the stream has a great extent. 32 Chairman Mitchell – What information do you need to be able to advise the Planning Commission of the impact of the development, as it’s going on and after it exists? Jack Dawson – There are really two components. One is the storm water component, which is the proposed conditions after the site has been built out. The other issue is impacts from erosion, which is during construction. What we are looking at with impacts, is from a conceptual level. There isn’t a sequence or methods. When you look at what the applicant submitted, they have identified all of the outfalls and the sewer lines that need to be removed. They are showing two proposed outfall locations. I know that not all of the engineering is there for the two outfall locations. From removing the utilities, it might double in width. We don’t have enough specific information to tell what those impacts are going to be. It’s going to look similar to what is on the impact plan. Chairman Mitchell – You are comfortable that we are doing what needs to be done to protect Pollack’s Branch? Jack Dawson – I am not comfortable saying that. We are definitely going to protect Pollack’s Branch. From an engineering standpoint, this is very preliminary. Chairman Mitchell – At what point do you typically get the storm water management plan? Jack Dawson – I believe that is the applicant’s decision in regard to when they want to proceed. I believe that an accelerated timeline occurred with us reviewing a critical slopes waiver prior to having a final engineering plan. Carrie Rainey – It’s up to the applicant as to when they would want to submit the critical slopes waiver in terms of the site plan process. The expedited timeline that CRHA is operating on probably had something to do with the application. Chairman Mitchell – When do you get the storm water management plan? Carrie Rainey – That is generally a part of the site plan. That would running along the same level of detail as the site plan. Those would be moving along the same track. The critical slopes application come in at a farther level of design. It could be up to the applicant. Chairman Mitchell – Do you have outlined things to mitigate this? Are you comfortable with the mitigation actions to protect Pollacks Creek? Jack Dawson – There is not enough information to know that this plan is totally adequate in protecting the creek. That’s not to say that it won’t be addressed in the future. Chairman Mitchell – What options do I have to make sure that it is addressed? Jack Dawson – That would be the conditions outlined in the recommendations. Chairman Mitchell – You’re comfortable that the conditions you recommended will make certain the protection of the creek dealt with? 33 Jack Dawson – Yes, with the recommendations in the standard engineering review, using our authority to ensure compliance with the existing storm water regulations. Applicant – Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development – When this site was developed in the 80s, you can clearly see the areas that were grated out to create the 58 units and the ballfields that comprise Phase I. On the back of those units, there is a chain linked fence that defines the border of the critical slopes. Once you get to that chain linked fence, it is a very steep drop off. That is what we were looking at with the resident design team. We really need to stay off of those areas, as we look to increase the density on the site and provide more affordable housing. That’s how they developed their character zones and site plan. What we are seeing in the city maps, is a little bit different. You have the proposed development and there are a couple categories shown. The yellow is the development from the 80s plus one new outfall. Those areas in either blue or red are the new public utilities going in or driveways that are both exempt from the critical slope waiver request. The red areas are those existing public utilities that are required by engineering to remove. The green areas are the existing critical slopes that we are projecting no impact to. The basic concept behind what we are doing is sticking to the areas that were already developed and giving ourselves a little bit of space. Something we learned from Phase I is allowing space to address the staff’s recommendation of getting in the erosion and sediment control measures to protect the critical slopes that are not being impacted and making sure that we can install the buildings as shown on the site plan. Scott Collins, Collins Engineering – We designed the project to completely eliminate all of these outfalls in this area above this one spot. We are installing a new outfall right here. We are talking about this little bit of critical slope impacts, just along the edge just enough to get all of the erosion control measures in to protect the stream, while we are doing the redevelopment. Ashley Davies – One of the conditions proposed by staff talks about a particular phasing of the project. There is already a specific phasing suggested that we really need to follow with the South First Street site plan. Phase 2a and 2b are totally based on relocation on the site. In Phase 2a, we have to build 4 and 5 bedroom units to accommodate those existing households, so we don’t have to force anyone to move off site. A lot of it is up front on South First Street. I didn’t want to get a condition incorporated that does not allow us to proceed with those very specific relocation efforts for residents. Scott Collins – As far as the drainage divide as well, the phases work pretty well. You have a drainage divide through the side. 34 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would it make sense to do the 2b phase with the ones adjacent to First Street first for the reasons stated in the proposed conditions? Scott Collins – That is correct. Ms. Creasy – The 2a and 2b situation is new to me. I didn’t know if the other staff were that there was consideration for that. I don’t know if that effects this in any way. Commissioner Stolzenberg – You’re OK with building the townhomes along First Street first in phase 2b. For 2a, you need to do at the same time? Ashley Davies – We would following the phasing, as we have established with 2a and 2b, and not have that condition within the critical slopes waiver, but maintain the other conditions. I fear that we might have other factors coming into play on how this all needs to line up. The fact this will be a LITCH project, and we have a very compressed timeline. I wouldn’t want to put additional conditions if we can avoid it if the slopes are adequately protected with the other conditions from staff. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Do you have any suggestions for ways to mitigate the impact by losing that condition? Ashley Davies – Since we are already phasing it, more than half of the site will stay stabilized, while we do the first phase. In effect, it is having the same benefit to the site. It’s a different phasing line than what staff was specifically suggesting. It does have the effect of a huge portion of the site staying stabilized, while the other portion is under construction. We can submit our exhibit to staff if you wanted to have a reference to phasing. Ms. Creasy – There will be more implications from our staff that gets into VSPM permitting and a lot of other engineering aspects that we need some more information. Jack Dawson – We have not seen a 2a or a 2b on the plans. Our recommendations are based on what we receive on the plans. That condition was a result of there being no phasing whatsoever. That specific recommendation is just a basic build away from the water first, you can control the sediment discharge prior to it getting in the stream. I wouldn’t be too worried about putting that recommendation on there because that’s a place holder for “we have no information on how this is going to get done.” It’s certainly feasible. There is nothing that we have seen that says any of this has been thought out beyond what you see here, which is conceptual at this point. That’s where that condition 35 came from. It might even complicate things because there’s an extensive program that we are required to enforce on behalf of the state within the city. That requires more complex phasing of erosion and sediment controls, which might get complicated if we try to carve out areas well before even the consultant has considered how they’re going to address these things, much less before we’ve reviewed if their approach is reasonable. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The process and regulations are in place that it will be addressed later? Jack Dawson – There should be processes in place to control every site that’s developed over 6000 square feet in the city. It doesn’t specifically speak to steep slopes. If you want to construct a more stringent recommendation, that might be worthwhile. We always do our best to make sure erosion controls are enforced on every site that we review. When talking about critical slopes, there is not much in this plan to say that this is exactly how they are going to go about doing this. Chairman Mitchell – When do we get the missing information? Jack Dawson – If you are going to make a recommendation that this be approved, it’s a general approval because these things are going to change from what is shown here. The applicant made a preliminary submittal. Staff reviewed that and the applicant withdrew the submittal. We have no plans in the works beyond what is shown here, which is concept level. We don’t have any further details to provide. Commissioner Green – This is a concept decision about critical slopes. If the Planning Commission says that we can disturb critical slopes, staff is going meet the state requirements and any additional city requirements. Is this project good for the welfare of the public worthy of a critical slope disturbance? If the public benefit outweighs disturbing of slope, that doesn’t mean the public benefit outweighs the protection of the creek. We are going to say ‘yes’ to this critical slope disturbance and we’re going to require the erosion and sediment control measures exceed the minimum requirements in order to mitigate potential impacts for the remaining undisturbed critical slopes and Pollacks Branch. The phase line was not on the plan, and staff did not take that into account. Jack Dawson – The recommendation about going above and beyond the required erosion and sediment control measures is as specific as we can get. If staff had an erosion control plan, that plan would likely have four or five phases. After doing a review of that plan, here are some suggestions from staff. This is so general. Motion: Commissioner Stolzenberg – I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver, subject to conditions, based on a finding that the public benefits of allowing the 36 disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34‐1120(b)(6)(d)(i). The following conditions are 1 thru 3 and number 5 of the staff report (Seconded by Commissioner Green). Motion passed 5-0 with one abstention. 2. Carlton Views Site Plan Staff Report Matt Alfele, City Planner – In front of the Commission, is the site plan for the last phase of the Carlton PUD. This started as an SUP for the PACE Center, followed by phase 1, then Carlton Views, phase 2 (currently under construction), and this is the last phase, which is the corner of Carlton and Franklin. Being a PUD, the Planning Commission is the reviewing body for site plans. When the Planning Commission receives a site plan, they are typically on the consent agenda. In certain cases, they might not go on consent. The Planning Commission, as a body, needs to look at them and determine whether they should be approved. Carlton Views is nearing the end of its review. It has met all of the requirements of the city ordinance and state ordinance and all of the requirements of the development plan. The proffer statement, with the exception of proffer statement 3f. (The landowner shall retain the existing tree canopy on the east side of the subject property adjacent to Franklin Street with an area designated as open space for the PUD. The final site plan for the PUD development shall depict how the requirements will be satisfied). The plan that staff reviewed, three trees were removed to make room for a small green space and a small dog park. The dog park and green space were discussed during the rezoning, but were not part of the development plan. The applicant has incorporated those after hearing from the Planning Commission and City Council. It was never proffered and never part of the development plan. The applicant does feel they still meet that proffer as written, and the plan should be approved. You need to approve the plan as presented or deny it. If you deny it, you need to articulate to the applicant why you are denying it. It has to be within the development and the proffer statement. There is no negotiation. This is a straight approve or disapprove. On the development plan, you can have minor changes, which are not substantially different. Is this change substantially different? Chairman Mitchell – Does the dog park mean that we lose those three trees? Where are the trees being replanted? What kind of trees are being replanted? Matt Alfele – That’s in the letter in your attachments. As presented, should this be approved? The applicant is saying that they are meeting the proffer. Commissioner Lahendro – It’s just trees and they are not interfering with the critical slopes? Matt Alfele – There were steep slopes under the old subdivision definition. There are no critical slopes, as defined in the site plan ordinance, which is the distance from water. 37 Chairman Mitchell – If I am reading this correctly, we are going to lose some trees. They are going to plant additional trees elsewhere that is going to increase the actual canopy. We are gaining 50% more trees. How is canopy defined? Matt Alfele – There is a calculation within the forestry handbook that talks about the calculation for determining the canopy of an existing tree. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Does the phrase “existing tree canopy” refer to the canopy that exists or the canopy of existing trees? Commissioner Green – The existing tree canopy is the mature trees. The proposed mitigation tree canopy will not be at 1496 square feet for ten years. Commissioner Solla-Yates – What is the existing tree canopy that will not be disturbed? Scott Collins, Applicant – About 4500 to 5000 square feet. Lisa Robertson – Outside of proffers, in our regular ordinance, where it talks about tree canopy and coverage, the phrasing that they use is that they have to provide a tree canopy, and you identify what the canopy will be at a ten year maturity or twenty year maturity, depending on where you are. Where existing trees are preserved, a bonus shall be granted as follows: In calculating the coverage provided by the existing trees shown on the landscape plan, an existing tree can be deemed to cover an area equal to one and one half times of the diameter of the trees existing dripline. If you weren’t talking about a proffer, you talk about tree canopy at a ten or twenty year maturity. You talk about existing trees and you get a bonus in calculations for preserving existing trees. Commissioner Lahendro – Where are the new trees being planted? Matt Alfele showed the Planning Commission on the site plan where the new trees are being planted. Motion: Commissioner Stolzenberg moved to recommend approval of the final site plan conditional on all comments within the October 31, 2019 comment letter being addressed (Seconded by Commissioner Solla-Yates). Motion passed 6-0 Meeting adjourned at 12:15 AM. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE “A Great Place to Live for All of Our Residents” Department of Neighborhood Development Services City Hall Post Office Box 911 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone 434-970-3182 Fax 434-970-3359 www.charlottesville.org To: Charlottesville Planning Commission From: Missy Creasy, Assistant Director Lisa Robertson, Deputy City Attorney RE: Planning Commission Operating Guidelines Date: February 4, 2020 Charlottesville Planning Commission determined that a review of the operational guidelines was needed. Chairman Mitchell appointed himself and Commissioner Stolzenberg to work with staff to provide updated language based on general feedback provided by the full commission. This small group met on January 27, 2020 to provide updates and directed staff to provide updated language for the February 11, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission can move to recommend approval of the updated version of the Operating Guidelines by approval of the consent agenda or alternatively can pull the item for discussion and further review. Attached: Operating Guidelines – Updated Version OPERATING GUIDELINES City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Members shall ethically serve the public interest by making decisions and taking actions which will enhance the public health, safety and welfare of the region and the citizens served by the Planning Commission and by promoting public confidence in the integrity, independence, ability and impartiality of the Planning Commission, 1. Members shall uphold the prestige of their office and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 2. When communicating with the public individual Members shall not convey the impression that they are in a position to dictate or control the outcome of a matter pending before the Commission. When discussing Planning Commission business outside of the public meeting context, Members should clearly articulate whether they are expressing their own personal opinion or a position of the Commission as reflected by a prior formal action; this guideline should be adhered to by Members when: (i) serving on committees as a representative of the Commission, (ii) posting commentary and opinions on social media, (iii) civic events and activities (such as when a Member is invited to speak to a civic organization). (See also #6, below). 3. Members shall discharge their duties and responsibilities in an impartial manner, without favor or prejudice toward any person or group. Prior to the Commission’s deliberation and/or public hearing of any matter that will come before it for action or decision, members shall refrain from making statements as to how they will vote and shall avoid making public statements either endorsing or opposing a pending application. When making a decision or recommendation Members shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the professional planning staff, but shall ultimately be guided by good zoning and planning practices and the public health, safety and welfare. 4. Members shall read and shall be fully informed about all matters that come before the Commission for action. Requests for additional information or clarification about any agenda item shall be made to the appropriate City staff person in advance of a meeting, and City staff who will be responsible for obtaining and providing the responsive information or clarification to the entire Commission. If a member becomes concerned that incorrect information regarding a particular application is influencing public opinions and discussions in a manner detrimental to the interests of a fair hearing before the Commission, then the member may attempt to correct the incorrect information—with reference to the contents of an application or staff report—or the member may bring the circumstances to the attention of the Deputy Director for Planning. A public meeting of the Commission is the optimal setting for the receipt of input from the public about any matter within the Commission's jurisdiction. There are instances, however, where individuals or groups will request a meeting with an individual Member about a matter pending before the Commission. If the Member believes that such a meeting will promote a fuller understanding of the relevant issues, strong consideration shall be given to holding such a meeting (i) during normal business hours; (ii) at a public location, such as City Hall; and (iii) with a member of City staff present. When the particular agenda item comes before the Commission, the occurrence of any such meetings should be publicly disclosed and reflected in the Commission’s meeting minutes. Any information received by an individual Member, whether in person, by telephone, in writing or by electronic mail, that is relevant to a matter pending before the Commission should be forwarded promptly to the Planning Manager prior to the public meeting date, for distribution to the entire Commission. 5. Members, shall not accept or solicit any money, gift, loan, payment, favor, service, business or professional opportunity, meal, transportation or anything else of value, that reasonably tends to influence the Member in the performance of his or her official duties, or as otherwise prohibited by section 2.2-3103, or any other provision of the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (“COIA”). It is the responsibility of each Member to read COIA (see also #7, below). 6. As private citizens Members may participate in political campaigns and elections and may exercise other Constitutional rights, in various forums (including, without limitation, participation in social media). Any Member exercising those rights should be mindful that their conduct and actions not compromise their ability to perform their duties as a Commissioner in a fair and impartial manner. All members of the Planning Commission are subject to the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act (“COIA”), and are required by law to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Act. Members must be particularly attentive of any potential conflict of interest that may arise from a personal, financial, business, employment or familial relationship between the Member and any individual interested in a transaction before the Commission. In the event of such potential conflict, whether actual or perceived, the Member shall consult with legal counsel for the Planning Commission before participating in any manner in the transaction. 8. Members shall remain vigilant against deviations from the Planning Commission by-laws, policies, guidelines and mission statement. City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services Staff Report PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2020 RE: BARRACKS/EMMET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Project Manager: Kyle Kling Date of Staff Report: 2/3/2020 Action Required: Review of Project for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34- 28, the Planning Commission will review the conceptual plan for the proposed Barracks Road & Emmet Street Intersection Improvement Smart Scale Project. The project proposes improvements to Barracks Road within the City of Charlottesville, between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road, in order to accommodate a new shared bicycle and pedestrian path. The project also includes operational and safety upgrades at the Barracks Road and Emmet intersection. The purpose of the review is to determine if the general character, approximate location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Background: An average of 23,000 vehicles and 13,000 vehicles travel along Emmet Street and Barracks Road respectively each day. Based on the annual growth in background traffic volumes and recently completed in-fill developments at this intersection, operational performance has continually degraded over the last several years and created an increasingly unsafe bicycle and pedestrian environment. To improve these conditions, the City of Charlottesville applied for, and was awarded more than $8.6 million through the Virginia Department of Transportation SMARTSCALE prioritization process to implement multimodal transportation improvements at the Barracks Road/Emmet Street intersection. The scope of improvements to be implemented as a condition of receiving these funds generally include the following improvements: • Improve overall level of services (LOS) and reduce queue lengths at the Emmet Street/Barracks Road intersection by implementing the following improvements: o Addition of a northbound dedicated right turn lane on Emmet Street. o Creation of an additional dedicated left turn lane on westbound Barracks Road, which will allow for overlapping (simultaneous) eastbound and westbound dual left turn movements. o Traffic signal modifications, including enhanced signal timings, to better control vehicular and bike/ped movement through the intersection. • Create a safer bicycle and pedestrian environment by implementing the following: o Improved median widths on all intersection approaches to provide acceptable pedestrian refuge. o Extend a shared use path north along Emmet Street and east on Barracks Road for a future trail connection down Meadowbrook Road o Implement additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements on the south side of Barracks Road between Meadowbrook Road and Hilltop Road o Add a bus pull-off and shelter at the existing CAT stop located on eastbound Barracks Road at Meadowbrook Road. A Request for Proposals was advertised that included the survey and design of these improvements, as well as the execution of an extensive public participation process. In April 2019, the City of Charlottesville contracted with Timmons Group, an engineering consulting firm, to develop plans for this project. In addition to the design parameters established by the RFP, Timmons Group researched the City of Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Streets That Work Plan. With a firm grasp of the project’s purpose and need, in addition to the recommendations offered under these City guidelines, the project team began the public involvement process to solicit neighborhood ideas and feedback on improvement options. Community Engagement: To help guide the project, the City appointed a project Steering Committee. The process also involved coordination with the following stakeholder groups: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee • PLACE Design Task Force • Planning Commission • Tree Commission The City of Charlottesville has provided multiple opportunities for the public to provide input into the plan development process. A project website, an on-line survey, individual property owner meetings, meetings with Boards and Commissions, two (2) community events (Public Workshop and Open House) and two (2) steering committee meetings occurred between May 2019 and November 2019. Information presented and gathered at the meetings can be found at www.barracksemmetimprovements.com, however a summary of each event is below: Project Website: The Project website (www.barracksemmetimprovements.com) contains information that has been presented to date as part of the process. Information presented includes: • Project background • General project scope • A “project updates” page that provides access to information contained in the VDOT SMARTSCALE application, posting of meeting notices and information presented/gathered from community events and steering committee meetings • A “contacts” page allowing written communication to be sent to the City PM Community Event 1: Public Workshop, October 2, 2019 A Public Workshop was held on Wednesday, October 2nd at Walker Upper Elementary School from 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM. The event was set up as an interactive workshop designed to gather input on the project from City and consultant representatives. The event was organized with two (2) exhibit viewing areas, each displaying the same information. Each area contained three (3) intersection improvement options and four (4) Barracks Road bike/pedestrian improvement options for review and consideration by the public. The intersection improvement options featured varying degrees of roadway widening and impact to adjacent slopes/trees on the westbound approach to the intersection on Barracks Road. The bike/pedestrian options included two (2) options for separate in-road bike facilities and two (2) options for a shared use path design approach. Participants were offered the opportunity to provide feedback on each option in a SurveyMonkey online project survey, which opened immediately following the workshop and closed 2 weeks later. Attendees were also given the opportunity to take the same survey in writing at the meeting. Once the online survey period closed and written comments compiled, a summary of survey results and recommended improvements were reviewed with City staff and presented for consideration at the next steering committee meeting (#2). This presentation and summary of discussion around recommended improvements can be found on the project website. On-Line Project Survey: The SurveyMonkey survey was active from October 2, 2019 to October 16, 2019 (2 weeks). A total of 90 respondents provided feedback on 10 questions. The goal of the survey was to obtain objective feedback on the most significant, and potentially controversial components of the project. The survey obtained quantifiable data from the general public on the following project elements: • Respondent identification and interest in the project • Priority Ranking of eight (8) corridor challenges the team should focus on solving • Public vote on four (4) bike/pedestrian improvement options for implementation along Barracks Road • Written feedback on three (3) intersection improvement options • Public vote on whether access to Meadowbrook Road should be left open (full access) or limited to right-in/right-out by extending a raised median through the intersection • Public vote on whether respondents would bike on Barracks Road if it were made safer. • Opportunity to provide general written feedback on the project A summary of survey results are as follows: Question 1 (name/address information) • 71 respondents provided personal information while 19 elected to remain anonymous. Question 2 (interest in the corridor) • All 90 respondents identified their interest in the corridor • 50% of respondents own their primary residence within the project limits while nearly 40% indicated they commute through the project area. 22% of respondents are employed by UVA. Question 3 (prioritization of improvements) • 81 of 90 respondents provided a ranking (#1 - #8) of their priorities. • Improve Pedestrian Safety received the highest weighted score (considering the cumulative ranking from all respondents). • Mitigate Traffic Congestion, Improve Bicycle Infrastructure/Access, Implement Traffic Calming Measures, Preserve Neighborhood Character & Aesthetics, and Maintain Dense Tree Canopy were all very closely ranked (#2 - #6) • Improve Transit Facilities and Add Corridor Lighting were the lowest ranked priorities (#7 & #8) Question 4 (bike/ped improvement options) • 86 of 90 respondents chose their favorite bike/ped improvement option. • Options 4 received the most votes as the most favorable option (selected by 30 of 86 respondents), which is to construct a multi-use path with no buffer/planting strip, on the south side of Barracks Road between Hessian and Hilltop Road. This option results in the shortest possible retaining walls. • Option 3 was the 2nd ranked option (selected by 27 of 86), which makes the multi-use path options most preferred by the public, rather than a dedicated climbing lane with sidewalk. • Implementation of a shared use path was clearly preferred over in-road bicycle facilities. Question 5, 6 & 7 (feedback on intersection improvement options) • Approximately ½ of respondents provided written feedback on the 3 intersection options presented. Generalized feedback is described as follows: o Prefer a dedicated westbound right turn lane, rather than the shared thru-right configuration proposed. o Most do not want retaining walls, which Option 1 provides. o Many liked having a sidewalk on the north side between Meadowbrook and Hessian Road, which Options 2 & 3 provide. o Question 5 (Option 1): 25 of 42 respondents prefer this option, mostly due to preservation of neighborhood character and tree canopy o Question 6 (Option 2): 11 of 40 respondents indicated they prefer this option, although most would also prefer Option 3. o Question 7 (Option 3): 11 of 40 respondents prefer this option. Most that dislike, do so because of retaining wall and loss to tree canopy. Question 8 (Meadowbrook Road access) • 45 of 78 respondents (58%) prefer to convert this intersection to right-in/right-out. Question 7 (utilization of improved bike facilities on Barracks Road) • 46 of 87 respondents (53%) indicated they would bike on Barracks Road if it were made safer. Question 8 (Additional feedback) • 59 of 90 respondents provided additional written feedback, as generally described below: o Most repeated comment: Protect neighborhood character by avoidance or minimization of retaining walls. o Additional safety improvements needed at the Hilltop Road intersection on Barracks Road, mostly due to poor sight distance making lefts out of Hilltop Road. o Most are in favor of safer pedestrian/bike environment, but want improvements extended beyond Hilltop/Buckingham. o Need to do something about speed control/calming. o Prefer a dedicated right turn lane on WB Barracks to NB Emmet St. Community Event 2: Open House, November 20, 2019 Project team members held an open house on November 20, 2019, at Walker Upper Elementary School from 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM. The open house allowed the public and stakeholders to view the results of the project survey and conceptual design preferred by City staff. This event was designed as an informal meeting with an InfoGraphic highlighted results of the project survey, large plan view mosaic of the preferred concept design and an illustrative rendering of how the preferred bike/ped improvements may look. All participates were offered the opportunity to discuss the project with City and consultant representatives, as well as provide additional written feedback at the meeting. The preferred concept presented at this meeting consisted of implementing improvements at the Barracks Road/Emmet Street intersection that minimize impacts to the adjacent properties while achieving the purpose and need of the VDOT SMARTSCALE application and operational/safety goals of the City. The preferred concept also includes the implementation of a 10’ shared use path along the south side of Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road with a 3’ curbside grass buffer between cars and pedestrians. This compromised approach offers critical space for unimpeded roadside features (street lighting and roadway signage) while minimizing retaining wall heights and impacts to adjacent properties. Steering Committee and Stakeholder Meetings Throughout the process, the design team collaborated with the Steering Committee and various other boards, committees and agencies to receive input and feedback during the design process. The following groups were met with on the following dates: • Individual Property Owner Meetings: July 23, 2019 • Steering Committee: July 25, 2019 and October 30, 2019 • PLACE Committee: November 14, 2019 • Planning Commission: December 10, 2019 Meeting agendas and summaries can be found under the “project updates” tab on the project website www.barracksemmetimprovement.com. Additionally, a Technical committee was formed which is comprised of representatives from appropriate City departments. The technical committee held meetings on the project on July 25, 2019 and October 30, 2019. The technical committee meetings confirmed input received from the public and stakeholder groups could be technically attained and then maintained. Standard of Review Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232, the Planning Commission will review the proposed Barrack/Emmet Improvements Project concept, located on Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road in the City of Charlottesville, to determine if the general character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. The Planning Commission shall communicate its findings to the Charlottesville City Council, with written reasons for its approval or disapproval. Comprehensive Plan Alignment: The following denotes alignment with the City of Charlottesville adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan. ▪ Land Use • Goal 2 - Mixed Use  2.1: When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. ▪ The project scope was determined using residential feedback and with a focus on ensuring the character of neighborhood remains  2.3: Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces. ▪ This project included enhancements to pedestrian connectivity throughout the corridor • Goal 4 - Regional Cooperation  4.1: Coordinate with Albemarle County and other regional stakeholders to create a link between the City’s pedestrian infrastructure and Monticello. ▪ Albemarle County and UVA have been active on the Steering Committee ▪ Community Facilities • Goal 2 - Emergency Rescue Services  2.2: Develop a strategy to address the issue of City‐wide and County accessibility so that a quick response time can be maintained. ▪ Members of emergency services have been involved with project development through the project Steering Committee. Minimum travel lane widths will be maintained to ensure accessibility by emergency services. • Goal 5 – Water Infrastructure  5.1: Maintain, repair and replace water lines where necessary. ▪ Project will minimize impacts to waterlines and replace as necessary. Location of improvements on Barracks Road are on the opposite side of existing waterlines to minimize any impact to these facilities. • Goal 7 - Parks and Recreation (Use)  9.5: Enhance multimodal access to parks. ▪ Project improvement will provide access to existing trails and bicycle facilities as well as safer crosswalks at the Barracks/Emmet intersection. • Goal 11 - Parks and Recreation (Trails)  11.1: Fully Implement the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Plan that has been approved by City Council. ▪ Implementation of shared use path address major need identified in Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan. ▪ Economic Sustainability • Goal 2 - Sustaining Business  Improve multi-modal access to local businesses ▪ Project will provide improved bike and pedestrian facilities, as well as a more appealing bus stop, to improve access to local businesses at the Barracks/Emmet intersection and beyond. ▪ Environment • Goal 2 - Urban Landscape & Habitat Enhancement  2.2: Expand and protect the overall tree canopy of the City and increase the canopy of neighborhoods in an effort to achieve American Forest canopy recommendations (urban: 25%, suburban: 50% and center business zones: 15%). ▪ Project team has worked to minimize impact to tree canopy along project corridor. Canopy trees will be preserved and/or added throughout corridor to support the City’s tree canopy goals. • Goal 4 - Water Resources Protection  4.5: Reduce and/or eliminate stormwater runoff impacts from sites that lack adequate stormwater treatment by incentivizing reductions in overall imperviousness (i.e., effective imperviousness) and encouraging retrofits on developed properties to address stormwater management. ▪ The additional of new impervious surfaces has been minimized by the re-purposing of existing pavement though the relocation of the existing curb line, which will also provide a traffic calming benefit and reduce tree canopy impacts. ▪ Transportation • Goal 1 - Complete Streets  1:1 Increase safe, convenient and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities that improve the quality of life within the community and within individual Neighborhoods. ▪ This project provides for shared use facilities at the Barracks Road/Emmet Street intersection, as well as on Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road. These shared use paths will be a consistent, accessible width of a minimum of 10’.  1.2: Provide convenient and safe pedestrian connections within 1/4 miles of all commercial and employment centers, transit routes, schools and parks. ▪ This project includes shared use facilities to enable multi-modal connections to transit routes and employment centers.  1.3: Provide design features on roadways, such as street trees within buffers, street furniture and sidewalk widths that improve the safety and comfort level of all users and contribute to the City’s environmental goals. ▪ This project proposes a 10’ shared use path with street lighting located within a proposed 3’ curbside buffer.  1.4: Explore and implement safe, convenient and visually attractive crossing alternatives to enable pedestrians and bicyclists to cross major thoroughfares. ▪ The project provides for improved pedestrian refuge areas crossing all quadrants of the Barracks Road/Emmet Street intersection.  1.5: Continue to include bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in conjunction with the planning and design of all major road projects, all new development and road paving projects. ▪ The project provides for consistent minimum 3’ wide curbside buffer between travel lanes and shared use path along Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road. Additionally, a lane width reduction on Barracks Road will be implemented as a traffic calming strategy while minimizing impact to adjacent properties.  1.6: Consistently apply ADA standards to facility design and ensure that accessible curb ramps exist at all pedestrian crossings where conditions allow. ▪ Consistent application of ADA standards throughout corridor including curb ramps at all crossings.  1.9: Seek to expand and anticipate traffic calming where applicable throughout the City in collaboration with neighborhood residents and as part of the development process. ▪ Reduction of existing lane widths to 11’ is anticipated to aid in traffic calming throughout the corridor. • Goal 2 - Land Use & Community Design  2.1: Provide convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between new and existing residential developments, employment areas and other activity centers to promote the option of walking and biking. ▪ This project proposes a 10’ shared use path with street lighting located within a proposed 3’ curbside buffer to provide safe and convenient access to adjoining neighborhoods and businesses. • Goal 7 – Regional Transportation  7.1: Actively work with VDOT, TJPDC, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia to develop a regional transportation network surrounding the City. ▪ Representatives from VDOT, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia are all active on the project Steering Committee and through participation and public events. • Goal 9 - Infrastructure Funding  9.3: Coordinate the funding and development of transportation facilities with regional transportation and land use plans and with planned public and private investments. ▪ Project is fully funded through SmartScale (HB2) ▪ Historic Preservation & Urban Design • Goal 1 – Urban Design  1.1: Emphasize the importance of public buildings, public spaces, and other public improvements as opportunities to promote a sense of place and a welcoming environment for residents and visitors. ▪ The project will implement strategies that promote neighborhood character and aesthetics while improving bike/pedestrian safety. Context sensitive treatment options will be considered for the appearance of the retaining wall along Barracks Road to maintain a sense of place.  1.2: Promote Charlottesville’s diverse architectural and cultural heritage by recognizing, respecting, and enhancing the distinct characteristics of each neighborhood. ▪ This project will improve the pedestrian experience minimizing property impacts and implementing design practices that maintain neighborhood character.  Goal 1.3: Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the city ▪ The project provides for upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities will enhance the experience of all transportation users of Barracks Road.  1.4: Develop pedestrian‐friendly environments in Charlottesville that connect neighborhoods to community facilities, to commercial areas and employment centers, and that connect neighborhoods to each other, to promote a healthier community. ▪ This project provides for upgraded multi-modal connection from surrounding neighborhoods to shopping centers, restaurants and transit facilities.  1.5: Encourage community vitality and interaction through the incorporation of art in public spaces, neighborhoods, signage, and gateways. ▪ Opportunities to provide ascetically pleasing retaining walls treatments will be considered in the design.  1.6: Encourage the incorporation of meaningful public spaces, defined as being available to the general public, into urban design efforts. ▪ The creation of a safe and consistent pedestrian space will encourage the use of Barracks Road by all modes of transportation.  1.7: Promote design excellence for public projects and installations at all scales. ▪ The extensive public participation process ensures excellence in design of improvements that meet the needs of all users of the Barracks Road corridor. • Goal 4 - Resource Inventory  4.2: Continue to identify and survey additional significant individual properties located outside historic districts. In addition to historic buildings, consider significant buildings from the recent past (less than 50 years old), structures such as sculptures, landscapes such as public spaces and cemeteries, and archaeological sites. ▪ Identified cultural and historic resources prior to the development of concepts. Worked closely with neighborhood to help maintain existing neighborhood characteristics • Goal 7 - Comprehensive Approach  7.8: Coordinate with the Public Works and Parks Departments regarding maintenance and construction that would affect historic features of the City’s neighborhoods. Where possible, maintain and repair granite curbs, retaining walls, distinctive paving patterns and other features instead of replacing them. ▪ Coordination underway with Public Works and Parks Departments. The project specifics have been coordinated with staff through the formation of a technical committee.  7.11: Encourage retaining and replenishing shade trees, particularly large trees where possible, in all neighborhoods as we strive to make the City more walkable. ▪ Replenishment of Shade trees planned along Barracks Road corridor • Goal 8 - Entrance Corridors  8.4: Use street trees, landscaping, and pedestrian routes to provide shade, enclosure, and accessibility in streetscapes. ▪ Preservation of existing tree canopy and replenishment of shade trees planned along Barracks Road corridor  8.7: When appropriate, coordinate the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines with Albemarle County’s Design Guidelines. Encourage continuity of land use, design, and pedestrian orientation between contiguous corridors in the City and County. ▪ Guidelines referenced to promote continuity of land use, design, and pedestrian orientation Suggested Motions for Amendment of Comprehensive Plan Text and Map 1. I move that the proposed Barrack/Emmet Improvements Project concept, located on Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road in the City of Charlottesville, to determine if the general character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. 2. I move to deny that the proposed Barrack/Emmet Improvements Project concept, located on Barracks Road between Emmet Street and Buckingham Road in the City of Charlottesville, to determine if the general character and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof for the following reasons: Attachments Resolution Project Presentation PLACE Design Task Force Project Recommendation RESOLUTION OF THE CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE BARRACKS/EMMET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Whereas, this Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Barracks/Emmet Improvement Project concept, after notice given as required by law, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Planning Commission confirms that the general character, location and extent of the proposed improvements are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Adopted by the Charlottesville Planning Commission, the 11th day of February, 2020. Attest: _________________________ Secretary, Charlottesville Planning Commission B a rra cks - E m me t I n te rs e ct i o n I m prove m e n t s CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION F E B RUA RY 11, 2020 ➢ PROJECT SCOPE & SCHEDULE ➢ PUB LIC ENGAGEMENT PR OCESS AGENDA ➢ C O N C E P T UA L D E S I G N ➢ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALIGNMENT ➢ QUESTIONS SCOPE & SCHEDULE P R O J E C T OV E RV I E W TO IMP R OV E T H E OP E R AT IONA L P E R F OR MA NCE OF T HE BA R R ACKS /E MME T PURPOSE OF IN T ER SECT ION WHIL E THE PROJECT A LS O ENHA NCING B IKE, P E DE S T R IA N A N D T R A N S IT FACIL IT IE S F OR T H E N E IGHB OR HOOD Cava Barracks Road CVS OVERALL PROJECT LIMITS A E R I A L M A P SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENTS: ✓ ADDITIONAL NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON EMMET STREET ✓ ADDITIONAL WESTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: (CONCURRENT DUAL LEFTS) ON BARRACKS ROAD ❖ TOTAL BUDGET = $8,600,000 ✓ PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING - $1M ✓ TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS ✓ RIGHT-OF-WAY - $3M ✓ PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLANDS AT ✓ CONSTRUCTION - $4.6M INTERSECTION PROJECT IS FULLY FUNDED THROUGH ✓ UPGRADED BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ON SMARTSCALE BARRACKS ROAD TO HILLTOP ROAD ✓ NEW CAT BUS SHELTER ON BARRACKS ROAD S MARTSCALE APPLICATION P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N SCOPING & VISIONING •SURVEY WE ARE HERE •TRAFFIC ANALYSIS •COMMITTEE MEETINGS DETAILED DESIGN (60%) •PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WINTER •DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN SUMMER •PREFERRED CONCEPT •DESIGN PUBLIC HEARING DESIGN 2020 •VDOT DESIGN APPROVAL 2021 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY DESIGN (30%) FINAL DESIGN (90%) SUMMER •PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMER •FINAL ENGINEERING SPRING 2019 •CITY COUNCIL 2020 DESIGN 2023 •PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING •RIGHT OF WAY DESIGN ACQUISITION •CITIZEN INFORMATION •UTILITY RELOCATION MEETING •VDOT AUTH. TO ADVERTISE PLANNING PHASE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE *SCHEDULE CONSISTENT WITH PROGRAMMING OF VDOT FUNDS PROJECT SCHEDULE T E N TAT I V E PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS C I T I Z E N F E E D B AC K INDIVIDUAL OWNER MEETING: PROJECT WEBSITE: • RESIDENTS THAT LIVE WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS WWW.BARRACKSEMMETIMPROVEMENTS.COM • VISITED THOSE AVAILABLE ON JULY 23, 2019 • REVIEWED PROJECT SCOPE, THEN LISTENED… • PRIMARY CONCERNS – TREE IMPACTS & SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #1: • DATE - JULY 25, 2019 • HIGHLIGHTED CORRIDOR CONCERNS & ISSUES • REVIEWED SMARTSCALE SCOPE & TRAFFIC STUDY • STRUCTURED PROJECT SURVEY QUESTIONS • OPENED UP FOR DISCUSSION • KEY TAKEAWAYS – PROTECT NEIGHORHOOD CHARACTER, IMPROVE CONGESTION, REDUCE SPEEDS, MAKE BIKING AND WALKING SAFER STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS I N I T I A L O U T R E AC H PUBLIC WORKSHOP: OPTION #1 OPTION #2 • PRESENTED DESIGN OPTIONS: • 3 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS • 4 BIKE/PEDESTRIAN OPTIONS • OPENED PROJECT SURVEY TO COLLECT PUBLIC FEEDBACK INTERSECTION OPTION #1 OPTION #3 OPTION #4 INTERSECTION OPTION #3 PUBLIC W ORKSHOP P R E S E N TAT I O N O F I M P R OV E M E N T O P T I O N S STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #2 • REVIEWED RESULTS OF THE PROJECT SURVEY & STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • GENERAL AGREEMENT, EXCEPT FOR BIKE/PED OPTION • DEBATED THE VALUE OF INCLUDING A REDUCED CURBSIDE BUFFER STRIP (3’ WIDTH) • MAJORITY OF MEMBERS PREFER NO BUFFER STRIP P ROJECT S URVEY RESULTS H I G H L I G H T S CONCEPTUAL DESIGN P R E F F E R E D O P T I O N HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PREFERRED CONCEPT: • IMPROVED OPERATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION • SAFER BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT • REDUCED LANE WIDTHS (SPEED CONTROL) • 10’ SHARED USE PATH WITH REDUCED 3’ GRASS BUFFER • MINIMIZED RETAINING WALLS WITH TREATMENT OPTIONS PUBLIC OPEN H OUSE P R E S E N TAT I O N O F P R E F E R R E D C O N C E P T *ESTIMATED WALL HEIGHTS ALONG WALL HEIGHT & TREE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IMPACTS: ✓ PRESENTED RESULTING WALL HEIGHTS FOR EACH OPTION ✓ ILLUSTRATED ANTICIPATED TREE IMPACTS PUBLIC OPEN H OUSE P R E S E N TAT I O N O F P R E F E R R E D C O N C E P T BEFORE THE PROJECT E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S AFTER THE PROJECT P O S T- C O N S T R U C T I O N RETAINING WALL OPTIONS A R C H I T E C H U R A L T R E AT M E N T S RETAINING WALL OPTIONS A R C H I T E C H U R A L T R E AT M E N T S RETAINING WALL OPTIONS A R C H I T E C H U R A L T R E AT M E N T S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALIGNMENT C I T Y S TA N DA R D S LAND USE COMMUNITY FACILITIES ✓ SENSE OF PLACE ✓ EMERGENCY RESCUE FACILITIES ➢ PRESERVATION OF ➢ COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER DESIGN STANDARDS TO MAINTAIN QUICK RESPONSE ✓ MIXED USE ➢ RESPECTFUL OF ✓ WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK ➢ AVOIDANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS ➢ ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN NEAR WATERLINES CONNECTIONS TO ➢ SPOT ADJUSTMENTS TO WATER COMMERCIAL CENTERS SERVICES IF NEEDED ✓ REGIONAL COOPERATION ✓ PARKS AND RECREATION ➢ PARTICIPATION OF ➢ SAFER ACCESS TO TRAILS AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS ADJOINING BICYCLE FACILITIES IN DESIGN EVOLUTION ➢ IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDS IN THE BIKE/PED MASTER PLAN 2 013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN C O N S I S T E N C Y W I T H T H E P L A N ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY ✓ URBAN LANDSCAPE & HABITAT ✓ SUSTAINING BUISINESS ENHANCEMENT ➢ IMPROVED MULTI-MODAL ➢ MINIMIZE IMPACT TO TREE ACCESS TO BUSINESSES CANOPY WHILE ACHIEVING THE PROJECT GOALS ➢ SAFER AND MORE APPEALING TRANSIT STOP ➢ SUPPLEMENT ANY TREE LOSS WITH NEW SHADE TREES THAT WILL MATURE OVER TIME ✓ WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ➢ RE-PURPOSING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO REDUCE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES 2 013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN C O N S I S T E N C Y W I T H T H E P L A N TRANSPORTATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION ✓ COMPLETE STREETS & URBAN DESIGN ➢ PROVIDE CONSISTENT, SAFE ✓ URBAN DESIGN AND ACCESSIBLE SHARED ➢ CONTEXT-SENSATIVE DESIGN USE FACILIITES TREATMENTS ADDED TO ➢ ACCESS TO TRANSIT STOPS RETAINING WALLS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES ➢ PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD ➢ ADD PEDESTRIAN REFUGE CHARACTER BY MINIMIZING ISLANDS AT BUSY TREE IMPACTS BARRACKS/EMMET ➢ CREATION OF MORE APPEALING INTERSECTION PEDESTRIAN SPACES WHILE ➢ REDUCE LANE WIDTHS TO IMPROVING ACCESS TO LOCAL PROMOTE SLOWER SPEEDS AMENITIES ➢ INCORPORATE CRITICAL BUFFER SPACE BETWEEN ✓ COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH CARS AND PEDESTRIANS ➢ CONTINUOUS COMMUNICATION ➢ IMPROVE ADA WITH CITY STAFF THROUGH ACCESSIBILITY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE THROUGHOUT INVOLVEMENT 2 013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN C O N S I S T E N C Y W I T H T H E P L A N BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PLAN ✓ BIKE VISION NETWORK ➢ BARRACKS ROAD DESIGNATED BICYCLE ARTERIAL ROUTE Source: 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Chapter 4, Page 32 BASED ON THIS ARTERIAL DESIGNATION AND STEEP GRADE OF BARRACKS ROAD, SEPARATED BIKE FACILITIES ARE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLAN 2 015 BIKE & PED M ASTER PLAN C O N S I S T E N C Y W I T H T H E P L A N Source: 2016 Streets That Work Plan, Chapter 3, Figure 7, Page 30 2 016 STREETS THAT W ORK PLAN S T R E E T T Y P O L O G Y CURBSIDE BUFFER ZONE: ➢ STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS NO BUFFER ➢ STAFF & PLACE RECOMMEND MIXED USE B NEIGHBORHOOD A REDUCED 3’ BUFFER, WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDES: ❑ < 30 MPH DESIGN SPEED ❑ < 25 MPH DESIGN SPEED ✓ CONSISTENCY W/ CITY’S BIKE/PED MASTER PLAN AND ❑ 11’ TRAVEL LANE WIDTH ❑ 11’ TRAVEL LANE WIDTH (W/ OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS (W/ TRANSIT) TRANSIT) ✓ ADDED PHYSICAL AND VISUAL SEPARATION FROM ❑3’-6’ CURBSIDE BUFFER ❑3’-6’ CURBSIDE BUFFER CARS ZONE ZONE ✓ SPACE FOR SIGNAGE, ❑ BICYCLE FACILITIES “HIGHEST LIGHTING, UTILITIES, ETC. ❑ 10’ SHARED USE PATH PRIORITY” ELEMENT ✓ UNIMPEDED FLOW OF BIKES ❑ TRANSIT SHELTERS AND PEDESTRIANS ❑ TRANSIT CURBSIDE WAITING ✓ TRAFFIC CALMING EFFECT ❑ MEDIAN REFUGE AREAS W/ BENCHES ✓ AREA FOR SNOW STORAGE 2 016 STREETS THAT W ORK PLAN C O N I S T E N C Y W I T H T H E P L A N • TIMMONS GROUP DRAFT Memorandum From: PLACE Task Force To: Charlottesville Planning Commission Date: November 25, 2019 Re: Barracks-Emmet Intersection and Street Improvements The PLACE Task Force appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the improvements being explored for the Barracks-Emmet Intersection project. Members of PLACE have been involved in the process so far, sitting on the Citizens Steering Committee as well as participating in public open houses. The City project manager and lead consultant have also reviewed the project with PLACE. Our consensus and recommendations in this memorandum are based on the most recent information provided by the City and the consultant, including at the most recent PLACE meeting, on November 14, 2019. Based on our vote at the end of the most recent meeting, we make the following determinations: • Overall We support the project overall, and encourage the City to complete pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements in the corridor as part of the effort to address increasing traffic congestion. The Barracks/Emmet project will realize a critical component of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the Plan’s objectives to provide a viable network of alternative transportation choices in the City. An alternative to private vehicles is critical to the City’s long-term economic growth, provision of equitable access, and sustainability. • Intersection of Barracks/Emmet We support Option 1 at the intersection of Barracks/Emmet. Option 1 is the most minimal option presented by the consultant, which has the least impact on the tree canopy and does not require retaining walls below Hessian Road. • Barracks Road to Hilltop Road We support the City’s Preferred Option. The Preferred Option maintains a 3’ buffer between the roadway (11’ travel lanes) and a shared- use path. A narrow planted lawn median between the curb and shared-use trail provides several benefits: it's a safer place to put street lights, it provides a buffer for pedestrians and cyclists, and it could have some traffic calming effect on vehicular traffic by making the 11’ width of the pavement is clear to drivers rather than presenting a continuous stretch of pavement. Given our support, we also make the following recommendations for design and further analysis in the next phase of the project: • Transit at Barracks/Emmet The bus stop on the north side of Barracks will be difficult to access in Option 1, and the City and consultant should explore possibilities to improve the bus stop and access to it. • Retaining Wall Design The next iteration of the project should focus on the design of the retaining walls. The design for the proposed retaining walls should minimize wall height and reduce the "highway" effect of the soldier pile wall by employing a neighborhood-friendly character to the wall face. The walls should have a simple, unfussy, appropriately scaled character. The design team should prepare a full elevation of the proposed wall so everyone can assess its impact. The wall height should step at regularly designed intervals, have an attractive coping to give it a finished appearance, and terminate in a way that's integrated into the landscape. Retaining wall design considerations include: o Planted walls o Brick or stone walls o Tiered walls with small setbacks to reduce overall wall bulk o Examine current code and design approaches to eliminate or limit guard railing/fencing on top of retaining walls • Tree Canopy Wherever possible, retain existing large trees. Where trees are lost, replace if adjacent property owners are interested. On replacement, use large trees that will contribute more quickly to the canopy over the roadway. • Transition at Eastern Terminus of Project The design needs careful consideration to ensure a safe and compatible integration of new elements with the current conditions at the eastern terminus of the project area, i.e. where the new trails and lanes have to connect to existing sidewalks and roadways. • Buffer at Top of Barracks Road While a consistent buffer is an important part of the City’s Preferred Option, we encourage the examination of the effects of narrowing or removing the buffer for the last 100’ feet of the shared-use path at the top (east end) of Barracks Road, in order to reduce retaining wall heights below 7’ in this stretch. • Trash Receptacles The design should include trash cans along the shared path, accommodated if possible in the buffer area. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF HEARING: February 11, 2020 APPLICATION NUMBER: SP19-00010 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: January 28, 2020 Applicant: Cville Business Park, LLC Applicants Representative: Chris Virgilio, Cville Business Park, LLC Current Property Owner: Cville Business Park, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1221, 1223, and 1225 Harris Street (“Subject Property”) Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 34, Parcels 90B, 90C, 90.1 Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: 2.446 acres or 106,547 square feet Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Current Zoning Classification: Industrial Corridor 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 is a potential for a maximum of one hundred and five (105) residential units in a mixed- use building proposed by this development. The applicant’s application materials are included as Attachment 1. The pre-application meeting required by Sec. 34-41(b)(1) was held on October 24, 2019. The community meeting required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) was conducted on January 16, 2020, at the following location: 1750 Allied Street. Applicant’s Request Chris Virgilio of Cville Business Park, LLC, (owner) has submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located at 1221, 1223 and 1225 Harris Street with approximately 343 feet of road frontage on Harris Street and approximately 55 feet of road frontage on Allied Street. The proposal requests additional residential density up to 43 dwelling units per acre (DUA), pursuant to City Code Section 34-480, and additional height of 2 stories pursuant to City Code Section 34-457(b)(5)(a). The applicant’s proposal shows a new mixed-use building on a portion of the Subject Property. The property is further identified on City Real Property Tax Map 34 Parcels 90B, 90C, and 90.1 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Corridor. The site is approximately 2.446 acres or 106,547 square feet. The proposed site plan, dated December 16, 2019 (Attachment 2) proposes the construction of a six story tall mixed-use building with retail space on the ground floor facing Allied Street, and up to 105 residential units. The plan also shows underground parking beneath the building. 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 – Grey (IC): Industrial Corridor; Pink (B-1): Business; Red (B-3): Business; Brown: M-R – Mcintire- 5th Residential with Public Park Overlay 4 Context Map 3 - General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Maroon: Business and Technology; Yellow: Low Density Residential; Green: Park or Preserved Open Space; Blue: Public or Semi-Public Application Components: Application – Attachment 1 Applicant’s Narrative and Additional Illustrative Materials – Attachment 2 5 Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. 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 Commercial and Residential IC South Commercial IC East Commercial IC West Railroad B-1 The subject property is in use as a commercial property. The proposed new mixed-use building would be taller and occupy more of the site. Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is near the northern end of Harris Street, just before it descends to meet McIntire Road. The frontage along Harris Street is sparsely wooded, and the buildings on the site do not present an edge to Harris Street as they are below the road’s height, as well as set back from the road some distance. The proposed building would be taller than the existing buildings on Harris Street. The Subject Property also fronts on Allied Street. Allied Street primarily has two-story commercial buildings along this frontage with zero setbacks, but the applicant previously constructed a pair of mixed-use buildings that are 4 stories tall at the end of the street. The building’s height on Allied Street would be in line with the 4 story mixed-use structures adjacent to the site. 6 The proposed project would be consistent with other uses in the area, and help achieve the City’s goal of developing centers of commercial activity supported by residential uses. Sec. 34-157(a)(2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. The applicant includes within the project proposal narrative (Attachment 2) a section regarding its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan on Page 2 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 believes the use conforms to the intent of the Business and Technology land use designation. Staff also recognizes the overall product of the proposal conforms to other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan listed below. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use Goal 3.2 – Public Space, “Enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers and create opportunities for others in areas where they will enhance adjacent residential areas. Provide opportunities for nodes of activity to develop, particularly along mixed-use corridors.” Staff Analysis: The special use permit would increase the total number of allowable residential units permitted on the Subject Property. The proposal is in keeping with the goal of creating and enhancing commercial centers adjacent to existing residential areas. 7 b. Housing Goal 3.6 – Grow the City’s Housing Stock, “Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing.” Staff Analysis: The proposed increase in the permitted maximum residential density on the Subject Property will give the applicant the option of providing a variety of unit types with the proposed building. c. Urban Design Goal 1.3 – Urban Design, “Facilitate development of nodes of density and vitality in the City’s Mixed Use Corridors, and encourage vitality, pedestrian movement, and visual interest throughout the City.” Staff Analysis: The Allied Street area has recently seen an increase in residential units which should have the impact of supporting surrounding commercial businesses. The proposed building would increase the number of housing options in the Harris Street/Allied Street area, which would result in an increase in activity along the corridor. 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. 8 Staff Analysis: The applicant has made no indication of how they intend to comply with the affordable housing zoning requirement in Section 34-12 of the City Code. This will be required prior to final site plan approval. 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 be required to conform to all applicable building code regulations. Building plans are not yet available for review, but the construction of the 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 the capacity to construct off-street parking that complies with the minimum parking requirements for the proposed building. Staff Analysis: Staff confirms that the applicant’s concept plan shows the ability to provide off-street parking on the site. The amount of parking required will depend on the final unit count of the building. Traffic: The applicant includes a “potential impacts” section within their project proposal narrative (Attachment 1) and notes that the existing automobile infrastructure can accommodate an increase in traffic, and that the site is adjacent to a robust pedestrian network that would permit occupants to walk downtown Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is near the McIntire/Harris intersection, which is increasingly congested because of increases in automobile volumes in the area. The proposed project will accelerate the need to re-evaluate the intersection and improve its condition to better accommodate the increased traffic volume. The SUP request will impact the traffic in the area, and it is likely the McIntire/Harris intersection will need to be upgraded to accommodate the building as designed. Staff has proposed a condition to address this impact. 9 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 the proposed project beyond the level that can typically be anticipated in a mixed-use corridor. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses Staff Analysis: There are no existing residents or businesses on the Subject Property that would be displaced as a direct result of the Special Use Permit, as the redevelopment of the property is permitted as a matter of right. 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 Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is located in the vicinity of a number of community amenities that should serve the residents of the project. The site has access to several modes of transit. The Subject Property is within walking distance of numerous commercial businesses and within walking distance of McIntire Park and the trail along Shenk’s Branch. 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: Staff from Charlottesville Schools has noted that they have observed increases in school enrollment when previous large multi-family buildings on West Main Street have opened. Staff speculates that the apartments on West Main Street 10 attracted students from the University of Virginia that were previously renting houses in the low-density neighborhoods near the University. When those students opted for the newly constructed rental units on West Main Street, families with school age children moved in the houses that the students vacated. The large scale apartment buildings that precipitated this increase in enrollment were all in the West Main West zoning district, and primarily feature unit configurations that are attractive to a student population. The applicant’s request would enable the applicant to construct more single and two-bedroom units within the building, units that tend to be less attractive to a student population. Additionally, the Subject Property is further removed from the University area than the West Main Street buildings, however, staff cannot discount the potential for new housing to start a reshuffle of housing options that could yield an increase in school population. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is not in an Architectural Design Control District. The Subject Property is near the McIntire Road Entrance Corridor and will be somewhat visible from the corridor. 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 the massing and scale of the proposed building. Staff Analysis: The prevailing height of buildings along the Harris Street corridor is one story above road grade, with some two-story structures. The zoning of the corridor permits heights of 4 stories by right, but no buildings are currently this tall. 11 The proposed building would be 6 stories above the average road grade of Harris Street which the applicant lists as 450 feet above sea level. The overall height shown in the applicant’s supporting documents would be 60 feet above the Harris Street road grade with the roofline at 510 feet above sea level. The Zoning Ordinance restricts 6 stories to 70 feet in height, which could permit the applicant to have a roofline as high as 520 feet above sea level. The Subject Property also fronts on Allied Street. Allied is primarily two story buildings, but has recently had two four story mixed-use buildings constructed on a site adjacent to the Subject Property. 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; Staff Analysis: Staff believes that a mixed-use building is appropriate within the Industrial Corridor zoning district. Adjacent properties are currently being used for mixed-use. 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 12 Per Sec. 34-41(c)(2), the applicant held a community meeting on January 16, 2020. Eight members of the public were present. Neighborhood concerns gathered from the community meeting are listed below. • The height of the building and its overall impact on the surrounding properties. • The pedestrian realm around the building and its attractiveness. • The potential rents, impact on affordable housing. • Parking supply • Access for modes of transportation other than cars. STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the application be approved with the following conditions: 1. The specific development being approved by this special use permit (“Project”), as described within the site plan exhibit required by City Code §34-158(a)(1), shall have the following minimum attributes/ characteristics: a. Underground parking shall be provided within a parking garage structure constructed underneath the Building. b. The maximum permitted height of the top of the building shall not exceed an elevation of 510 feet above sea level, with the exception of rooftop structures as regulated in section 34-1101 of the City Code. 2. The applicant shall provide a preliminary traffic study of the immediate area surrounding the building, as well as traffic impact on Allied Street, Harris Street and the intersection of Harris Street and McIntire Road. The scope of the traffic study shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to submission, and must be submitted to the City for review and comment prior to the approval of the final site plan for the project. POSSIBLE MOTION(S) 1. I move to recommend approval of a special use permit allowing the specific development proposed within the application materials for SP19-00010 subject to the following reasonable conditions and safeguards: • The conditions presented in the staff report • [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of the special use permit requested by SP19-00010. 13 ATTACHMENTS 1) Special Use Permit Application received December 17, 2019 2) Special Use Permit Narrative dated December 16, 2019 3) Conceptual Plan dated January 15, 2020 14 jifui!;J' ~ r" City of Charlottesville e- - • @ ~ ~ ~ ~ g..... '° GJN1A-), ~ "<\ .Application for Special Use Permit Project Name: ...Harr....__ eet......A....P..... .......... is str.......... artments_ .................... _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Address of Property: _,1'-223-25 ==......= ............ Harri=- = "'""'s-=...... Street = ,....._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 340090100. 340090COO. 340090800 Current Zoning District Classification: .....l.... C_ _ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Business & Technology Is this an amendment to an existing SUP? _No_ If "yes", provide the SUP#:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Applicant: Chris Virgilio Address: 224 14th St NW, Charlottesville, VA 22903 Phone: 434-989-0372 Email: cvirgilio@woodardproperties com Applicant's Role in the Development (check one}: Owner <.........._'!1-"-'-'~..L-""LLU-l....,.,,,__+---,1------~----- Date: 12/17/2019 By (sign name)=-r--.:::~-~""---+-1-----Print Name: Keith 0. Woodard Circle one: Owner's: LLC Member ~ Corporate Officer (specify): _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specific):-----­ 5 City of Charlottesville Disclosure of Equitable Ownership 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. Following below I have provided the names and addresses of each of the real parties in interest, including, without limitation: each stockholder or a corporation; 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 Keith 0 Woodard Address 224 14th Street NW, Charlottesville, VA 22903 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. Applicant: Chris Virgilio By: Signature~C ~-'~ ~~-5# ---~------ --- Print Chris Virgilio Date __,. .7/~ _1. . 2.. . ,/1 . . 2.>L- O1 ......9'---­ Its: _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ {Officer, Member, Trustee, etc.) __,__ 6 •&· ·F:i '" ~ City of Charlottesville ~ ~ ~ g.... ~ GJNI A .. ). ~ ...<\ Project Na me: _,_H..._a__ rr=is"'S - Fee Schedule tre.....e......t ...,. ""'...... Ap _a .....rt""'m "'""'en "'.....ts" - - - - - - - - - - - Application Type Quantity Fee Subtotal Special Use Permit 1 $1800 $1,800 Special Use Permit {Family Day Home for 6-12 $500 Children) Mailing Costs per letter $1 per letter Newspaper Notice Payment Due Upon Invoice TOTAL $1 ,800 Office Use Only Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: Amount Received: Date Paid Received By: 7 1223-25 Harris Street Redevelopment SUP Application Narrative Statement Request for Additional Density and Height December 16, 2019 Site and Existing Building C-Ville Business Park LLC is proposing a mixed-use, commercial and residential, development that combines parcels at 1225, 1223, and 1221 Harris Street (parcel IDs numbers 340090100, 340090C00, and 340090B00 respectively). The Habitat for Humanity Store located at 1221 Harris Street is an existing commercial building that will remain. The existing commercial structure at 1223 Harris Street and market rate residential duplex at 1221 Harris Street will be replaced by the proposed mixed-use building. The site is in the industrial corridor “IC” zoning district and encompasses 2.45 acres. New Building The proposed project includes construction of a single mixed-used building with parking on the lower floors of the building. Pending approval of the SUP, the maximum height of the building will be 70 feet and will include up to 156 residential units. Commercial space at street level will work in tandem with future sidewalk improvements to further activate Harris Street and promote pedestrian activity and engagement. Commercial space will also be located on the ground floors. SUP Request Currently, the maximum, permissible by-right height of the building is 4 stories or 50 feet, and the by-right residential density for this 2.45-acre project site is 51 units (21 DUA). With this special use permit, we are requesting an increase in height up to 6 stories or 70 feet, and an increase in density up to 156 dwelling units (64 DUA). The approval of additional density and height will allow for greater flexibility of unit sizes and price points. Harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood McIntire Plaza is home to over one hundred small businesses and has grown extensively over the years, most recently with the addition of 36 residential units, and 32,000 SF of new and renovated commercial space. Located just one mile from the Historic Downtown Mall and easy access to Routes 250 and 29 North, McIntire Plaza is already home to an eclectic mix of businesses. This project will harmoniously continue the successful trend towards mixed-used development, and will add to the vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, urban environment. Conformity with Comprehensive Plan The proposed project fulfills many of the housing goals the city has outlined in their comprehensive plan – most directly is the goal to incorporate more mixed-use development. Additionally, through an increase in the permitted maximum residential density and height, the proposed project will provide more housing options at multiple price points for multiple income levels. This complies with the city’s goal of providing housing stock for residents of all income levels, including more affordable options. Further, the walkability of the mixed-use development, coupled with nearby parks, trails, and bike paths align with the City’s sustainability principals. Further, as office space continues to grow in this area, additional residential properties will provide conveniently located housing for workers, reducing traffic congestion, pollution, and supporting the local economy. Finally, mixed use development also reduces the need for redundant parking as the commercial and residential tenants can utilize the same parking facilities. Page 1 of 3 Transportation is another critical aspect of the City’s comprehensive plan. Specifically, parking under the building allows the location to support the economic activity and residents without sacrificing aesthetics and allows more engagement at the street level. By combining residential and commercial uses, the parking can be shared and thus decreased. The location is also close to main transit corridors to facilitate multimodal travel and is not adjacent to a low-density residential development. Compliance with USBC Provisions The project will be constructed in complete compliance with all building code requirements. Existing Affordable Housing The development is not displacing or reducing the amount of “affordable dwelling units”. The project will comply with affordable housing requirements in ordinance section 34-12 required by an approval of the special use permit. Density, Height, & Massing Considerations It is expected that the additional density will have minimal impact on the city. The proximity of the project to retail and employment centers, public transit, and walkable paths will help mitigate any potential impacts. While increased density can cause issues with parking, this will not be an issue in the proposed project because there will be sufficient off-street parking on the lower levels of the building for all residential and commercial units. Additionally, we do not anticipate there will be significant noise generated from the proposed project beyond the level that can typically be anticipated in a mixed-use building. No existing residents or businesses will be displaced as a result of the SUP, as the re-development of this project is by- right. The height of a building in relation to its overall configuration or massing is one of the more significant factors in determining the impact a building will have on its surrounding environment. Even though this building is not in an architectural control district it will be a prominent structure, so care will be taken to ensure the height and mass of the building are proportional and well designed. Using transitional volumes and creating variation along the façade will create visual rhythm and interest and divide the overall mass. Additionally, the only buildings directly adjacent to the proposed mixed use building are owned by the developer so the building height would not impose any adverse shading impacts to adjacent building owners. Environmental, Public Facilities, & Infrastructure Considerations The proposed mixed-use building will demonstrate conformance with City zoning requirements, as well as meet City engineering standards for proposed infrastructure. The project proposes two entrances into the parking facilities from Harris Street, and two entrances located at the rear of the proposed building from an existing access drive. The entrances and parking facility levels utilize existing grades minimizing the impact to the site topography. During the site plan process we will work with the City traffic engineer to ensure parking and entrances are safe and in compliance with City standards. The impact of additional car trips generated by the development should not negatively impact City traffic. Direct access to main thoroughfares such as 250-bypass and Old Preston Avenue prevent traffic, to and from the building, from passing through residential neighborhoods. The project location is close enough to major employment and retail centers that we expect residents and commercial business customers will utilize alternate forms of transportation, i.e., bikes, electric scooters, bus, and walking that reduce car trips generated by this development. Page 2 of 3 Improvements to the existing City sanitary sewer system will be made. The existing City sanitary system that runs through the site will be consolidated and rerouted to provide a more efficient design. Materials of the rerouted sanitary system will be upgraded to meet current City Utility Department and Engineering standards. Bicycle parking and storage facilities will be provided per City standards. Bicycle facility placement will be coordinated with the City Bicycle and Pedestrian coordinator to ensure that they are conveniently located in relation to existing and proposed City bicycle infrastructure. Pedestrian access will be coordinated with the City of Charlottesville to incorporate the proposed Harris Street sidewalk improvements. Pedestrian access will be designed in a thoughtful manor to ensure ADA compliant access to Harris Street and to encourage pedestrian activity. Existing overhead telecommunication facilities are being evaluated for relocation underground along Harris Street adjacent to the development. The removal of these utility poles, added sidewalks, and improved lighting will help to enhance the Harris Street streetscape. This development is in close proximity to public transit stops, bicycle facilities, and multimodal paths which will help to promote alternatives to vehicular transportation. This project is situated within walking distance to parks, super markets, retail, and walking trails. The included Context Plan demonstrates the site’s walkability to various nearby points of interest. A higher density residential use would allow more people to utilize these. It is this project’s goal that, after development, there will be an overall increase in the pedestrian activity on and around Harris Street. The project and landscape improvements along Harris Street will complement the City’s proposed sidewalk and street improvements and will facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity. All vehicular parking requirements will be met through the use of structured parking facilities located under the proposed building. Existing surface parking lots on site will be removed. The proposed parking design will minimize the quantity of impervious cover, while maximizing the usable square footage available for commercial and residential space. All applicable regulations under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program will be met, to ensure that adjacent waterways are protected during and after site construction. Increased runoff and pollution as a result of increased impervious area has been mitigated by providing parking within the building footprint, decreasing the overall area of proposed impervious surfaces. Stormwater will be managed onsite. Stormwater will be detained onsite and released to the existing City stormwater infrastructure in such a way that does not cause an increase to the existing flow in the facilities. Conclusion The proposed request for a SUP to increase the height and density of a mixed-use building is in alignment with the City’s comprehensive plan for creating more mixed-use, urban development, and presents limited potential adverse effects. The increased height and density will provide housing options to a wider range of income levels. The building and location support sustainability goals – such as walkability and bikeability. We expect that the proximity of commercial and residential spaces will help to reduce transportation costs and support the use of nearby trails and parks. The project will also bolster the already successful McIntire Plaza with additional residents and commercial spaces. Page 3 of 3 S:\103\44983-1223_Harris_St_SUP\DWG\44983C-XPBASE_CONTEXT.dwg | Plotted on 12/16/2019 5:24 PM | by Clint Shifflett 10T HS WEST MAIN TR EE T BARRACKS ROAD SHOPPING CENTER REIDS RO CARVER SCHOOL BUS STOP SE PR BUS STOP HI ES LL TO REC CENTER N DR IV E AV PUBLIC TRANSIT SUPERMARKET BURLEY MIDDLE EN PUBLIC TRANSIT UE BUS STOP BUS STOP PUBLIC TRANSIT HA PUBLIC TRANSIT RR I S ST R EE T MALL PROJECT LOCATION DOWNTOWN COVENANT MULTIMODAL PATH PLAZA FIELD MCINTIRE (LOWER SCHOOL) ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR LANE BASEBALL M SPRINT C INT I PAVILLION RE SCHENKS RO GREENWAY AD 5 MIN. .25 MI. PARK PA R K ST MCINTIRE RE ET R O U TE BUS STOP 25 0 PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS STOP PUBLIC TRANSIT .50 MI. 10 MIN. RIVANNA TRAIL MULTIMODAL PATH 0 .75 MI. 15 MIN. 300' NAD 83 PANTOPS SCALE 1"=300' 600' SHOPPING CENTER THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 1223 HARRIS STREET - SPECIAL USE PERMIT DATE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SCALE JOB NO. C1.0 1" = 300' Z. DAHL DRAWN BY SHEET NO. 44983 CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY 12-11-2019 C. SHIFFLETT C. SHIFFLETT SITE CONTEXT PLAN These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. S:\103\44983-1223_Harris_St_SUP\DWG\44983C-XPBASE.dwg | Plotted on 12/13/2019 12:23 PM | by Clint Shifflett 0 NAD 83 20' SCALE 1"=20' 40' 276 PLAT TON DINH T.M. 34-90.A D.B. 1102-268, 272 THROUGH D D.B.173-31,37 PLAT SAN HARRIS STREET (60') T.M. 34-90.B USE: HABITAT STORE GAS METER SIGN C-VILLE BUSINESS PARK LLC D.B. 1123-154,159 THROUGH 174 PLAT SAN POLE LIGHT 20' PRIVATE (D.B.1102-302) DRAINAGE ESMT. METER SAN TEL. BOX ELECTRIC 20' SANITARY (D.B.1102-303) SEWER ESMT. WATER METER T.M.34-90.C SAN PP S D MAILBOX #1223 CONDUIT ELECTRIC S SAN S SAN POST #1225 SAN SA N SA N S /C OH T GAS DISH VALVE SATELLITE X SA N X X D D PARK LLC T.M. 34-90.3 D.B. 1123-154,159 C-VILLE BUSINESS THROUGH 174 PLAT D D T.M. 34-90.4 C-VILLE BUSINESS PARK LLC D.B. 1123-154,159 THROUGH 174 PLAT BOX UTILITY SIGN METER WATER THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 1223 HARRIS STREET - SPECIAL USE PERMIT DATE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA SCALE 1" = 20' JOB NO. C2.0 Z. DAHL DRAWN BY SHEET NO. 44983 CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY 12-11-2019 C. SHIFFLETT C. SHIFFLETT SUP EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. SITE DATA: TAX MAP PARCEL AND OWNER INFO:PARCEL(S) 340090B00, 340090C00 & 340090100 CVILLE BUSINESS PARK LLC 224 14TH STREET NW CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 TOTAL SITE AREA: 2.446 ACRES (PARCELS 90.B, 90.C, AND 90.1 COMBINED) TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.708 ACRES LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE: 0.929 ACRES ROGER W. RAY & ASSOCIATES, INC. SOURCE OF SURVEY, BOUNDARY, AND TOPOGRAPHY: 663 BERKMAR COURT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE (434) 293-3195 CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE: NAVD 88 CURRENT USE: COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, PARKING LOT PROPOSED USE:MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL REVISION DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 64 DUA PAVED PARKING AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION AREA IS LOCATED UNDER THE BUILDING AND ACCESSED ON HARRIS STREET AND THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. T.M. 34-90.B RECREATION AREA: PROPOSED COURTYARD AND ROOF TOP AMENITY SPACE C-VILLE BUSINESS PARK LLC D.B. 1123-154,159 THROUGH 174 PLAT ZONED: IC (INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR) USE: HABITAT STORE SETBACKS: PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE (HARRIS ST): NO MINIMUM, 20' MAXIMUM SIDE AND REAR (NOT ADJACENT TO LOW DENSITY RES.): NONE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. ADJACENT AREAS: NORTH - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR S EAST - HARRIS STREET SOUTH - INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR WEST - RAILROAD MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 70' UTILITIES: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PUBLIC WATER, SEWER SAN WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (PRELIMINARY): D DATE SITE DATA D PRE DEVELOPED AREA IMPERVIOUS = 0.495 AC DATE S SAN SAN S PRE DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 1.20 LB/YR 12-11-2019 POST DEVELOPED AREA IMPERVIOUS = 0.708 AC PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DRAWN BY DETENTION +/- 55' OF 60" CMP POST DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 1.66 LB/YR Z. DAHL D MAXIMUM PERCENT REDUCTION REQUIRED FOR REDEVELOPMENT = 10% DESIGNED BY TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (LB/YR) = 0.49 LB/YR PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO C. SHIFFLETT VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY WILL BE MET. UNDERGROUND PARKING SAN CHECKED BY C. SHIFFLETT D SCALE WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS (PRELIMINARY): 1" = 20' DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS PRE DEVELOPED POST DEVELOPED PROPOSED RELOCATED AREA = 0.929 AC AREA = 0.929 AC 0.495 AC (IMPERVIOUS) 0.708 AC (IMPERVIOUS) SANITARY SEWER TC = 5 MIN TC = 5 MIN D Q (CFS) V (AC-FT) Q (CFS) V (AC-FT) 1 YEAR 3.13 0.156 1 YEAR 4.42 0.184 SAN 10 YEAR 6.56 0.341 10 YEAR 6.92 0.376 T.M.34-90.C 1223 HARRIS STREET - SPECIAL USE PERMIT These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): QDEVELOPED ≤ 0.90*(QPRE-DEVELOPED*RVPRE-DEVELOPED)/RVDEVELOPED PROPOSED UNDERGROUND DETENTION +/- 55' OF 60" CMP OK 2.00 CFS ≤ 0.90*(3.13 CFS*6795 CF)/(8015 CF) CF = 2.39 CFS FLOOD PROTECTION: PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO POST-DEVELOPED Q10 ≤ PRE-DEVELOPED Q10 UNDERGROUND PARKING OK 6.30 CFS (POST-DEVELOPED Q10) ≤ 6.56 CFS (PRE-DEVELOPED Q10) T.M. 34-90.A TON DINH SAN D.B. 1102-268, 272 THROUGH 276 PLAT SUP CONCEPT PLAN CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA PP SAN S HARRIS STREET (60') PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO D.B.173-31,37 PLAT UNDERGROUND PARKING limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. S:\103\44983-1223_Harris_St_SUP\DWG\44983C-XPBASE.dwg | Plotted on 12/16/2019 5:25 PM | by Clint Shifflett PROPOSED ROAD AND SIDEWALK PROPOSED ENTRANCE TO IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS UNDERGROUND PARKING T.M. 34-90.4 C-VILLE BUSINESS PARK LLC D.B. 1123-154,159 THROUGH 174 PLAT NAD 83 T.M. 34-90.3 C-VILLE BUSINESS SCALE 1"=20' PARK LLC JOB NO. D.B. 1123-154,159 THROUGH 174 PLAT 44983 0 20' 40' SHEET NO. C3.0 1223 - 25 HARRIS STREET 1747 ALLIED ST COMMERCIAL 1745 ALLIED ST MIXED USE 1750 ALLIED ST MIXED USE 1739 ALLIED ST THE GYM 1721-31 ALLIED ST COMMERCIAL 1713-19 ALLIED ST 1301 HARRIS ST COMMERCIAL CVILLE COFFEE 1734-38 ALLIED ST COMMERCIAL A LL IED ST SITE 1221 HARRIS ST 1223-25 HARRIS ST AD HABITAT STORE 1734-38 ALLIED ST RO COMMERCIAL CE ALL VI IE R DL SE 1700 ALLIED ST N CIRCA FURNITURE E RD HA RR IR IS MCINT 1224 HARRIS ST INTERIOR CONCEPTS ST 1201 HARRIS ST INTERNATIONAL 1226 HARRIS ST IMPORTS SARISAND TILE 1218 HARRIS ST INTRASTATE PEST 1240 HARRIS ST NAPA AUTO PARTS MCINTIRE PLAZA PROPERTY LINE SITE LOCATION - MCINTIRE PLAZA N WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION SITE LOCATION 1 1223 - 25 HARRIS STREET ALL ALL I ED IE D ST ST G4 G3 COMMERCIAL PARKING & PARKING MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES PROPERTIES HABITAT HABITAT STORE STORE OUTLINE OF OUTLINE OF AREA ABOVE AREA ABOVE HARRIS ST HARRIS ST G4 COMMERCIAL SPACE AND PARKING; BY RIGHT G3 PARKING; BY RIGHT ACCESS FROM ALLIED ST AT ELEVATION 402 ACCESS FROM EXISTING DRIVEWAY AT ELEVATION 413 APPROX. 4,000 SF APPROX 4,000 SF A LL A LL IE D IE D ST ST G2 G1 MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL HABITAT PARKING PROPERTIES HABITAT PROPERTIES STORE STORE PARKING APPROX 12,000 SF COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL APPROX 22,25 SF APPROX 4,675 SF APPROX. 4,375 SF LVL 6 LVL 5 LVL 4 PARKING LVL 3 OUTLINE OF APPROX 22,25 SF LVL 2 AREA ABOVE HARRIS ST LVL 1 GRADE PLANE LEVEL G 1 COMMERCIAL PARKING PARKING ELE 450 G2 COMMERCIAL PARKING PARKING HARRIS ST HARRIS ST G3 PARKING G4 PARKING/COM ALLIED ST LEVEL G2 COMMERCIAL AND PARKING; BY RIGHT G1 COMMERCIAL AND PARKING; BY RIGHT N ACCESS FROM HARRIS ST AT ELEVATION 425 ACCESS FROM HARRIS ST AT ELEVATION 438 APPROX 16,375 SF APPROX 26,650 SF WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION PLANS 2 1223 - 25 HARRIS STREET A LL A LL IE D IE D ST ST AMENITIES COURTYARD APPROX 4,175 SF BELOW LVL 1 LVL 2-4 MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL HABITAT PROPERTIES HABITAT PROPERTIES STORE STORE RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES RESIDENTIAL COUTRYARD APPROX 17,800 SF APPROX 4,675 SF APPROX 9,850 SF BELOW RESIDENTIAL PARKING/COMMERCIAL APPROX 17,800 SF APPROX 7,975 SF HARRIS ST HARRIS ST LEVEL 1 PARKING, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND AMENITY SPACE; BY RIGHT LEVEL 2-4 RESIDENTIAL; BY RIGHT ACCESS FROM EXISTING DRIVEWAY ELEVATION 450 ELEVATION 460, 470, 480 APPROX. 26,650 SF APPROX 17,825 SF ALL ALL IE D IE D ST ST COURTYARD COURTYARD BELOW BELOW LVL 5 LVL 6 MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL HABITAT PROPERTIES HABITAT PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL STORE STORE AMENITIES APPROX 17,800 SF COURTYARD APPROX 9,850 SF COUTRYARD BELOW BELOW LVL 6 RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES LVL 5 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LVL 4 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LVL 3 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LVL 2 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL APPROX 17,800 SF APPROX 7,975 SF HARRIS ST LVL 1 PARKING/COM AMENITIES RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES GRADE PLANE LEVEL G 1 ELE 450 G2 HARRIS ST HARRIS ST G3 G4 ALLIED ST LEVEL LEVEL 5 RESIDENTIAL LEVEL 6 RESIDENTIAL AND AMENITY SPACE N ALLOWED WITHSPECIAL USE PERMIT ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT ELEVATION 490 ELEVATION 500 APPROX. 17,825 SF APPROX 17,825 SF WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION PLANS 3 1223-25 HARRIS ST 1223-25 HARRIS ST ST A RR I S -2 8 H 1224 S ROAD A CCES D ST HARRIS ST ALLIE VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM HARRIS ST; BY RIGHT VIEW NORTH FROM 1750 ALLIED ST; BY RIGHT 1223-25 HARRIS ST 1223-25 HARRIS ST ST A RRI S -2 8 H 1224 S ROAD A CCE S D ST A L L IE HARRIS ST VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM HARRIS ST; WITH SUP VIEW NORTH FROM 1750 ALLIED ST; WITH SUP WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION 3D VIEWS 4 1223-25 HARRIS ST AL L IE D ST HABITAT STORE MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL 1223-25 HARRIS ST PROPERTIES ST D LIE HARRIS ST AL S T R IS HABITAT STORE R HA AERIAL VIEW NORTH FROM SOUTH; BY RIGHT AERIAL VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM NORTHWEST; BY RIGHT 1223-25 HARRIS ST ALL I ED ST HABITAT STORE MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL 1223-25 HARRIS ST PROPERTIES T DS LIE HARRIS ST AL ST RI S HABITAT STORE H AR AERIAL VIEW NORTH FROM SOUTH; WITH SUP AERIAL VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM NORTHWEST; WITH SUP WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION 3D VIEWS 5 1223-25 HARRIS ST WITH SUP LVL 6 ELE 510 LVL 5 BY RIGHT LVL 4 ELE 490 LVL 3 LVL 2 HABITAT STORE LVL 1 GRADE PLANE G1 ELE 450 1745 ALLIED ST G2 G3 G4 ALLIED ST SITE SECTION A FROM FRONT B WITH SUP 1223-25 HARRIS ST A ELE 510 LVL 6 BY RIGHT LVL 5 ELE 490 LVL 4 LVL 3 LVL 2 HARRIS ST GRADE PLANE LVL 1 ELE 450 G1 G2 G3 B A ALLIED ST G4 SITE PLAN SITE SECTION B FROM BACK WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION SECTIONS 6 1223-25 HARRIS ST WITH SUP 70’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE BY RIGHT 50’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE HABITAT STORE AVG GRADE PLANE ELE 450’ 1745 ALLIED ST MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL MCINTIRE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES PROPERTIES HARRIS ST ELEVATION 1 ALLIED ST 2 1223-25 HARRIS ST WITH SUP 70’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE BY RIGHT 50’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE 1224-28 HARRIS ST HARRIS ST AVG GRADE PLANE 1 ELE 450’ ACCESS RD HABITAT STORE SITE PLAN ALLIED CIRCLE ELEVATION 2 WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION ELEVATIONS 7 1223-25 HARRIS ST WITH SUP ELE 510 BY RIGHT ELE 490 1745 ALLIED ST HARRIS ST GRADE PLANE ELE 450 ALLIED ST NORTHWEST ELEVATION 3 3 1223-25 HARRIS ST WITH SUP 70’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE BY RIGHT 50’ ABOVE AVG. GRADE PLANE 1224-28 HARRIS ST HARRIS ST GRADE PLANE ELE 450 HABITAT STORE ACCESS RD 4 SITE PLAN SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 4 WOODARD PROPERTIES JANUARY 15, 2020 1223-25 HARRIS ST - SUP APPLICATION ELEVATIONS 8