Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, September 14, 2021 at 5:30 P.M. Virtual Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT 1. Annual meeting - Election 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) i. Minutes – March 30, 2021– Work Session III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. ZM20-00002 – 240 Stribling PUD –Southern Development on behalf of the landowner, Belmont Station, LLC, has submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately twelve (12) acres of land, identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel 18A025000 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Stribling Avenue. The application proposes to change the zoning district classifications of the Subject Property from R-1S (Residential Small Lot) / R-2 (Residential Two-Family) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and development plan. The Proffers include: (1) a. For the purposes of this Proffer, the term “Affordable Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means a dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a household that pays no more than thirty percent (30%) of its gross income for housing costs, including utilities, provided that the annual gross income of the household/occupant is sixty percent (60%) or less than of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the City of Charlottesville, as said AMI is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Fifteen percent (15%) of all dwelling units constructed shall be ADUs. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the required ADUs shall be reserved for rental to low- and moderate-income households for a period of a least ten (10) years. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the required ADUs shall be reserved for ownership by low- and moderate-income households for a period of at least thirty (30) years. During construction the For-Sale ADUs shall be constructed incrementally, such that at least five (5) Affordable Dwelling Units shall be either completed or under construction pursuant to a City-issued building permit, prior to the issuance of every 30th Building Permit for non-affordable dwelling unit. The rezoning would allow a PUD referred to as “240 Stribling PUD” containing no more than one-hundred and seventy (170) residential units divided between single-family attached, townhomes, and multifamily buildings at a density of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of 4.76 acres, and the following unique characteristics/ amenities per the development plan: approximately two (2) single-family attached style units, approximately sixty-nine (69) townhome style units, three (3) multifamily buildings, central green space, nature trail, four (4) new City standard public roads, pedestrian and vehicular access to Morgan Court, and six (6) new private roads built to City private road standards. The proposed development is intended to be completed in approximately twenty (20) phases. In order for the Landowners to implement the PUD Plan, they will need to disturb areas within Critical Slopes; this application also presents a request for a Critical Slopes Waiver per City Code Sec. 34-516(c). The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential (15 DUA or less). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments- h-z/neighborhood-developmentservices (available online five to six days prior to the Public Hearing) or obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, 2nd Floor of City Hall, 610 East Main Street. Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3636). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Cville Plans Together – Implementation Chapter and Topic Specific Chapters V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday September 21, 2021 – 5:30 PM Work Cville Plans Together Session Tuesday October 12, 2021 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday October 12, 2021 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - April 13, 2021, May 11, Meeting 2021, June 8, 2021, July 13, 2021 ADDITIONAL OCTOBER MEETING Comprehensive Plan POSSIBLE Rezoning/SUP – 1613 Grove Street Extended Entrance Corridor Review Board - 916 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) 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, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Middle Density zoning and Affordable Dwelling Unit , 12th and Rosser/CH Brown Historic Conservation District (six properties) Site Plan – Grove Street PUD, Flint Hill PUD Site Plan, Critical Slope Waiver - 1223 Harris Site Plan, Critical Slope Waiver – Lyman Street Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass Future Entrance Corridor • 916 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) • 2005 JPA – New apartment building, likely requires SUP (Mitchell Matthews Architects) • 1252 N Emmet – New medical office building (Aspen Dental) • 1815 JPA - New apartment building (Wassenaar+Winkler Architects) • 1150 5th Street SW – new convenience store and gas canopy (Wawa, Riverbend) • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) 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. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom . You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 8/1/2021 TO 8/31/2021 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. First Presbyterian Church -500 Park Street – August 19, 2021 b. Wesley Foundation 1908 Lewis Mt. Road – Terrace Addition – August 23, 2021 4. Subdivision a. BLA – 1146 5th Street SW (TMP 21B-47) – August 10, 2021 March 30, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes are included as the last document in this packet. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A REZONING OF PROPERTY APPLICATION NUMBER: ZM20-00002 DATE OF HEARING: September 14, 2021 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Staff Report: August 30, 2021 Applicant: Southern Development Applicants Representative: Charlie Armstrong Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 240 Stribling Avenue Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 18A025000 (real estate taxes paid current – Sec. 34-12) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 12.07 acres (525,769 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Classification: Multiple Zoned Lot: R-1S (Residential Single Family Small Lot) and R-2 (Residential Two-family) Proposed Zoning Classification: PUD (Planned Unit Development) with Proffers Overlay District: None Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34-490. Other Approvals Required: Critical slopes waiver (P20-0079) Applicant’s Request (Summary) Southern Development on behalf of the landowner, Belmont Station, LLC, has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the above parcels of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “R-1S” (Residential Small Lots) & “R-2” (Residential Two-Family) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. Page 1 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications KEY - Orange: R-2, Yellow: R-1S, Light Yellow: R-1, Green: PUD Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY: Yellow: Low Density Residential Page 3 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Rezoning Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Z.O. Sec. 34-41. The role of the Planning Commission is and make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to whether or not Council should approve a proposed rezoning based on the factors listed in Z.O. Sec. 34-42(a): (a) All proposed amendments shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall review and study each proposed amendment to determine: (1) Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan; (2) Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community; (3) Whether there is a need and justification for the change; and (4) When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; Page 4 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle- alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. For applicant’s analysis of their application per Sec 34-42, Sec. 34-41(d), & 34-490 see Attachment A and B Sec. 34-42(a)(1): Whether the proposed amendment conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request is in compliance: a. Land Use 2.3: Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green space. (related to areas within the development) 2.5: Expand the network of small, vibrant public spaces, particularly in areas that are identified for higher intensity uses and/or potential higher density. 3.1: Respect natural resources and sensitive environmental areas, including designated flood plain areas, rivers, and streams. 3.4: Increase both passive and active recreational opportunities for Charlottesville residents. b. Community Facilities 11.1: Fully implement the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Plan that has been approved by City Council. c. Housing 3.2: Incorporate affordable units throughout the City, recognizing that locating affordable units throughout the community benefits the whole City. 3.3: Achieve a mixture of incomes and uses in as many areas of the City as possible. 3.4: Encourage creation of new, on-site affordable housing as part of rezoning or residential special use permit applications. 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. 3.6: Promote housing options to accommodate both renters and owners at all price points, including workforce housing. Page 5 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD 4.3: Promote long-term affordability of units by utilizing industry strategies and mechanisms, including deed restrictions and covenants for their initial sale and later-resale and the use of community land trusts. 7.1: To the greatest extent feasible, ensure affordable housing is aesthetically similar to market rate. d. Transportation 2.2: Encourage new street connections and alternate traffic patterns where appropriate to distribute traffic volumes across a network and reduce trip lengths for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. 3.5: Identify additional roadway connections to improve the connectivity of streets. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request may not be in compliance: a. Land Use 2.1: When considering changes to land use regulations, respect nearby residential areas. 2.3: Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green space. (related to areas outside the development) 4.4: Coordinate with Albemarle County on matters of land use that cross the jurisdictional border. b. Housing 8.3: Encourage housing development where increased density is desirable and strive to coordinate those areas with stronger access to employment opportunities, transit routes and commercial services. c. Transportation 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. 2.3: Improve walking and biking conditions by discouraging and/or minimizing curb cuts for driveways, garages, etc. in new development and redevelopment. 6.6: Encourage the development of transit-oriented/ supportive developments. 6.8: Work closely with new developments to provide an accessible path from nearby transit stops to an accessible entrance of the site/building. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is currently zoned R-2 along Stribling Avenue and R-1S along the remainder of the lot. The two-family residential zoning districts were established to Page 6 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low-density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. The R-1S district was established to provide and protect quiet, low-density residential areas wherein the predominant pattern of residential development is the single-family dwelling. R-2, consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. The R-1S districts consist of low-density residential areas characterized by small-lot development. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential is described as land occupied by single or two-family types of housing. The density in these areas by-right should be no greater than 15 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to PUD to accommodate different types of housing units that are not currently allowed in the R-1S and R-2 districts or in the Low Density Residential areas of the City. Although the overall density for the site would remain at the maximum 15 DUA designated for Low Density Residential, townhouses and multifamily are not permitted in the R-1S or R-2 districts or Low Density Residential areas. Due to the townhouses and multifamily units on the site, the subject property would be considered High Density Residential per the 2013 Land Use Map. High Density Residential includes all land intended to be occupied by multifamily residential types of housing (townhouses, apartments, condominiums. The density in these areas should be greater than 15 units per acres. According to the PUD Development Plan Use Matrix (Attachment A) uses permitted within the PUD would be consistent with most of the current R-1S and R-2 uses, with some exclusions and additions. Multifamily, Rowhouse/Townhouse, two-family (not permitted in R-1S), parking garage, surface parking lot, surface parking lot (more than 20 space), and temporary parking facilities are added while libraries are removed. Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will remain at 15 DUA, but will be concentrated to the northern end of the lot. With a maximum DUA of 15 this development would conform to the 2013 Land Use Map. With the building type of multifamily and townhouse, this development would not conform to the 2013 Land Use Map. Streets that Work Plan The Streets that Work Plan labels Stribling Avenue as “Local”. Local streets are found throughout the city, and provide immediate access to all types of land uses. Although local streets form the majority of the street network, there is no specific typology associated with Page 7 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD them. This is due in part to the many variations in context and right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets that do not meet current engineering and fire code standards. The majority of Stribling Avenue lacks sidewalks and has limited width due to variable right-of-way and narrow paving. On street parking is also allowed adding to the constrained width for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. As Stribling Avenue continues west into the county, it becomes even narrower and is unimproved north of the train tracks all the way to Fontaine Avenue. Any development on the Subject Property will impact the vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian capacity of Stribling Avenue. As part of the development, the applicant is proposing four (4) new public streets. As these streets would be new, they are not listed in the current Street Typology. Based on the location and use associated with this development, the new streets would have a typology of “Local”. The applicant is also proposing that “Road D” (Attachment A) connect the development to Morgan Court. Morgan Court is a “Local” street within the Huntley PUD development to the east of the Subject Property. Although most of the lots on Morgan Court have been developed, Morgan Court has not been accepted for maintenance into the City street network. Connecting the proposed development to Morgan Court will allow a second access point for such a large development and will also provide additional bicycle and pedestrian access. It should be noted that just like Stribling Avenue, Morgan Court has narrow travel lanes and an incomplete sidewalk network. In addition to the proposed four (4) public streets being proposed, the applicant is also proposing six (6) private roads for access to the townhouses. The Streets that Work plan does not give a typology to private roads, but they are governed by the City’s Standards and Design Manual and section 34-390 of the Zoning Code. As presented, the six (6) private roads will provide the required buffered sidewalks on one side and streetscape trees. Staff is concerned with the high number of curb cuts on the private roads needed to provide vehicular access to each unit. Staff is also concerned the private roads function more as shared driveways and do not provide connectivity within the development. Bike Ped Master Plan No bikeway facility improvements are recommended in the City’s 2015 Bike Ped Master for Stribling Avenue, but the plan does call for a Shared Use Path on the western edge of the Subject Property. A “Shared Use Path” is a bi-directional paved route used by people bicycling, walking, and other non-motorized modes of transportation. Shared use paths are often used as active transportation routes through parks or other recreational areas, while side paths are often built parallel to existing streets. Both types can be used for recreation Page 8 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD or commuter transportation. These paths generally require a minimum width of 10-12 feet. As part of the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to build a Shared Use Path within a fifteen (15) foot access easement connecting the development to the existing path along Moores Creek. The new public and private roads proposed within the development are not addressed in the City’s Bike Ped Master Plan. Sec. 34-42(a)(2): Whether the proposed amendment will further the purposes of this chapter and the general welfare of the entire community. Staff finds that a land use change from R-1S/R-2 to PUD, with proffers, as described in the application materials, could benefit the surrounding community by providing additional residential housing of a type that is not available in this part of the City, increasing community open space, and adding additional access to Moores Creek. Sec. 34-42(a)(3): Whether there is a need and justification for the change. According to the City’s 2013 Future Land Use Map, this portion of the City should be Low Density Residential and allow single and two-family dwellings types. The proposed PUD would not alter the density range in this area of the City, but would change the housing type allowed (multifamily and townhouse). Based on the application materials presented, staff is of the opinion that the proposed zoning change is not justified. Sec. 34-42(a)(4): When pertaining to a change in the zoning district classification of property, the effect of the proposed change, if any, on the property itself, on surrounding property, and on public services and facilities. In addition, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of the property for inclusion within the proposed zoning district, relating to the purposes set forth at the beginning of the proposed district classification. Any development on the Subject Property would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support any development contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The purposes set forth per Z.O. Sec. 34-350(a) and (b) are: Single-family (R-1). The single-family residential zoning districts are established to provide and protect quiet, low-density residential areas wherein the predominant pattern of residential development is the single-family dwelling. There are four (4) categories of single-family zoning districts: R-1(S) ("small lot"). Consisting of low-density residential areas characterized by small- lot development. Page 9 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD And Two-family (R-2). The two-family residential zoning districts are established to enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low-density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. There are two (2) categories of R-2. Consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. Included within this district are certain areas located along the Ridge Street corridor, areas of significant historical importance; Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Sec. 34-490. - In reviewing an application for approval of a planned unit development (PUD) or an application seeking amendment of an approved PUD, in addition to the general considerations applicable to any rezoning the city council and planning commission shall consider whether the application satisfies the following objectives of a PUD district: 1. To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; Key Features and materials Representations about the Specifics of the Proposed PUD Development Plan: The following key components are represented in the applicant’s PUD Development Plan, Proffers, and Application:  Twenty (20) rows of townhouses, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan.  Three (3) multifamily buildings designated as condominiums, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan.  Two (2) single-family attached dwelling units, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan.  A use matrix that allows residential and related uses such as single-family attached (SFA), rowhouse/townhouses (TH), single-family detached (SFD), two- family (TF), and multifamily (MFD), family day home, and residential treatment facilities up to 8 residents; non-residential uses such as house of worship, ball fields, and swimming pools. The use matrix prohibits such uses as, nursing homes, animal shelters, libraries, and gas stations.  The proposed PUD Use Matrix allows MFD, SFA, SFD, TH and TF by-right. Parking garages, surface parking lots under and above 20 spaces, and temporary parking facilities are allowed as ancillary uses.  Fifteen percent (15%) of all dwelling units constructed within the area of the Subject Property shall be Affordable Dwelling Units.  Two (2) central greens (Open Spaces A and B), in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan. Page 10 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD  Preservation of existing wooded area (Open Space C) between the development and Moores Creek.  Total Open Space of 4.760 acres (41.9% of the total site), in the general or approximate locations depicted with the PUD Development Plan.  Shared Use Path constructed to City Standard Detail TR-1. City detail states the minimum width will be ten (10) feet and constructed of a non-erodible surface approved by the City Engineer. Crush-and-run/stone dust may be substituted as an acceptable surface type per approval of the City Engineer.  Four (4) new City standard roads, in the general or approximate locations depicted within the PUD Development Plan.  A public road connection to Morgan Court.  Six (6) private roads built to City standards for rear loading of townhouses. o The City’s Subdivision Ordinance §29-161 requires every residential lot to have frontage on either a public street, or a private street within a townhouse development; City Council cannot, by approving a PUD Plan, amend the City’s street standards). Based on the general layout shown within the PUD Plan, the private street would meet the requirements of section 34-390 of the zoning ordinance. The townhouse private-street- access requirements are not “dimensional requirements” (see section 34- 500) that can be altered by approval of a PUD Plan.  On-street parking generally located as depicted within the PUD Development Plan. Including parking on the western side of Road A and C.  Structured parking for the three (3) multifamily buildings to be provided within each building.  Dwelling units within the development will have porches and balconies.  Zero (0) minimum setbacks for structures within the development and five (5) foot setbacks for structures adjacent to properties outside the development. o Having a minimum setback of zero (0) does not exclude the developer from providing street trees. Only areas with a maximum of zero (0) or ten (10) feet are exempt from this requirement.  Maximum building height of fifty-five (55) feet except for lots 1 – 7. These lots have a maximum height of three (3) stories.  Subtle variations of massing, wall openings, and colors will be used on the dwelling units to reduce repletion.  Widening of Stribling Avenue along the north side of the property adjacent to Road A.  A preliminary landscape plan with screening on the edge of the property and general location of street trees. Page 11 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD o Note: City Council cannot waive the street tree standards by approving the PUD Plan. Number and location of street trees required by section 34-870 will be reviewed during final site plan approval. Preliminary review of the plan indicate there could be possible conflicts with utilities. Section 34-870(1)(a) is not applicable to this development.  Sheltered five (5) foot sidewalks along both sides of all public roads and one side of all private roads.  The project is being proposed as a twenty (20) phase development. The developer will need to enter into a development agreement with the City prior to approval of a final site plan. With a development of this size (maximum 170 units on 12 acres) not all aspects will be of equal or higher quality. Understanding the by-right buildout of the Subject Property can highlight some of the equal, higher, or lower quality elements of the proposed development. Under the current zoning the Subject Property could accommodate approximately twenty-four (24) single family attached units and sixty-four (64) single family detached units, for a total of eighty-eight (88) units. Note this is a rough number and is not taking into account road layout or design. This is only the raw numbers based on lot sizes of 3,600sqft minimum for single family attached and 6,000sqft minimum for single family detached. The actual number would be much lower. A more realistic total unit count for a by-right development, with roads, would be around forty-five (45). It should also be noted that even in a by-right development scenario, the applicant would most likely need to apply for a Critical Slope Waiver from City Council, or gain approval from Planning Commission for a public road layout that impact Subdivision Critical Slopes. Areas of equal or higher quality as compared to the strict application of the R-1S and R-2 zoning district regulations.  Lots 43 – 44, 48 – 54, and 57 – 64 are clustered around shared green space.  A Shared Use Path to Moores Creek which would not be guaranteed with a by- right development.  Connected public road network and connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods.  Variety of housing types (multifamily, townhouse, and single family attached).  Small lot size with clustered development that leaves a majority of the site and trees undisturbed. Areas not of equal or higher quality as compared to the strict application of the R-1S and R-2 zoning district regulations.  Too many private roads with no outlets or connectivity. Page 12 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD  Lots 1 – 35 and 40 – 47 are flag lots (for utility access) which are not encouraged by the subdivision ordinance. Overall staff finds the proposed development could be built to equal standards of the current zoning district. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. Staff finds the portions of the development centered on communal open space to be innovative with regards to building placement and design. The overall layout of the public streets and sidewalks form a network that is consistent with the City’s connectivity goals. The townhouses and multifamily buildings arrangements are typical to what you would find in the R-3 districts of the City and do not meet the goal of this section. Staff also has concerns with the number of private roads that offer no connectivity and only serve as shared driveways for the townhouses. 3. To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a development containing only a single housing type, to promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; Staff finds the developer is proposing three (3) housing types (townhouse, multifamily and single-family attached), although the proposed Use Matrix also allows the following other housing types by right: single-family detached and two-family. The applicant is also allowing internal and external accessory apartments, but per code Sec. 34-1200 these units are only allowed in single-family detached dwellings. Staff finds the development, as presented, would meet this section of the PUD objective. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; The plan, as proposed, would preserve more open space and trees than a by-right development by clustering units around communal open spaces and consolidating density to the north of the Subject Property. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; The applicant is proposing to construct the development in twenty (20) phases. The first phase will complete the improvements to Stribling Avenue, the first public road (Road A), and the public road connection (Road D) to Morgan Ct. At the time of this report the lots between the Subject Property and Morgan Ct. are still owned by Huntley of Charlottesville, LTD. The applicant is proposing that with each subsequent phase, access road and utility infrastructure shall be constructed to complete a cohesive block at a time. The applicant has not addressed how the open space will be provided and be Page 13 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD accessible with each phase as required by Sec. 34-505(2): The open space within each recorded phase may constitute fifteen (15) percent of the gross land area within that phase, or all required open space may be provided in the first phase. The applicant has also not indicated in which phase the Shared Use Path will be constructed. Staff is also concerned with how the proffered affordable housing will be incorporated into the phasing of the development. The proffer indicates that; “During construction the For- Sale Affordable Dwelling Units shall be constructed incrementally, such that at least 5 Affordable Dwelling Units shall be either completed or under construction pursuant to a City-issued building permit, prior to the issuance of every 30th Building Permit for non- affordable for-sale dwelling units.” It is not clear if the proffer statement is addressing each phase of construction, or development as a whole. Prior to approval of a final site plan the applicant will need to finalize the Phasing Plan and enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 6. To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such adjacent property; The townhouse and single-family attached portions of the development could be harmonious with the surrounding single-family detached and single-family attached neighborhoods if the heights of these units do not reach the allowable height of fifty- five (55) feet. It is unlikely the townhouses and single-family attached units would be built that high, but it is allowable in the development with the exception of the townhouses that front on Stribling Avenue. It is more likely that the multifamily units proposed on the western side of the development will reach the maximum height of fifty-five (55) feet. The fall of the site to the south will prevent most units from being overshadowed by the multifamily buildings. Traffic is concerned that the density will have an impact on the unimproved portion of Stribling Avenue. The multifamily units would not be harmonious with the existing uses and character of the adjacent properties. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; The development will impact critical slopes and require the removal of some large existing trees. By clustering the development, large portions of the property can be preserved as open space. The applicant materials indicate a Tree Preservation easement will be established on the southern and western portion of the Subject Property. The application materials do not go into detail on what will be in the easement language, when it will be established, or how the area will be protected during construction. The Page 14 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Tree Preservation easement is also included in the Preliminary BMP/Stormwater Management Plan (Attachment B). 8. To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally within the development as well as in relation to adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; The application materials indicate a variety of architectural styles that could be used in the development. Although no examples are given, the applicant is proposing to use a mix of materials, colors, variation in massing, and wall openings. Although not stated in the application, varying setbacks of the units could create architectural interest. The development plan calls for a minimum zero (0) foot front yard setbacks. Per Sec. 34-870 and the development plan, street trees are required. As the proposed setback is not a “maximum” of zero (0) feet and only a minimum, any conflict at site plan with utilities will require the footprint of the building to be move to accommodate street trees or amendment of the PUD. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; Coordinated linkages among internal buildings, open space, Moores Creek, and the surrounding neighborhood is provided within the development and is to scale with the neighborhood. Residents of the development and the neighborhood would have new access to the trail along Moores Creek and Morgan Court. Due to the lack of pedestrian facilities and infrastructure on Stribling Avenue and Morgan Court, access beyond the development will be limited until such facilities are provided. 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single- vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. The proposed roadways appear to meet the vision set forth in the Streets that Work Plan with sidewalks on both sides, landscaped planting areas, on-street parking, and ten (10) foot travel lanes. However, as designed, the proposed sidewalks (on all roads, but particularly B and D) have the potential to be regularly blocked by vehicles and therefore inaccessible. These sidewalks are adjacent to the garages and even though the applicant is providing space for two (2) cars within the garage, people will opt to park in the substandard driveway (across the sidewalk) making these sidewalks unusable. The applicant refers to “widening of Stribling,” but the existing and proposed widths of Stribling remain unclear. An existing and proposed cross-section of the roadway specifying widths should be included. The design of Stribling should follow the Streets that Work guidelines and proposed street trees along Stribling should be provided between the travel lane and proposed sidewalk. The pedestrian access plan shows a grid Page 15 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD of pedestrian paths, however the concept plan fails to account for opportunities to cross Road C. Roads A and C are sited along steep grades (8 and 10% respectively) making ADA access at the intersections difficult (if not impossible) to achieve. Intersecting roads are sited on a 5% grade resulting in a compound cross-slope greater than what is allowed under the ADA and SADM. Intersections should be designed with a 2% level landing within fifty (50) feet of the intersection. The Subject Property is not currently served by a CAT bus line. As part of the rezoning application, the developer is proposing certain proffers related to the development. Summary of Proffers: The proffered development conditions include: (i) affordable housing: a. For the purposes of this Proffer, the term “Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit reserved for occupancy by a household that pays no more than thirty percent (30%) of its gross income for housing costs, including utilities, provided that the annual gross income of the household/occupant is sixty percent (60%) or less than of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the City of Charlottesville, as said AMI is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). b. Fifteen percent (15%) of all dwelling units constructed within the area of the Subject Property shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (“Required Affordable Dwelling Units”). The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be identified on a layout plan, by unit, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the PUD (“Initial Designation”). The Owner reserves the right, from time to time after the Initial Designation, and subject to approval by the City, to change the unit(s) reserved as Affordable Dwelling Units, and the City’s approval shall not unreasonably be withheld so long as a proposed change does not reduce the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units, and does not result in an Affordability Period shorter than required by these proffers with respect to any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units. i. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low- and moderate-income households (“Rental Affordable Dwelling Units”). Each of the Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least ten (10) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official (“Rental Affordability Period”). All Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be administered in accordance with City regulations adopted pursuant to the Page 16 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD provisions of City Code 34-12(g) as such regulations are in effect on the date of Owner’s signature, below. For the purposes of this section and section 1.b.ii. below, if City regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of City Code 34- 12(g) are amended by the City after the date of Owner’s signature, below, the Owner may elect in writing to the Zoning Administrator to instead by bound by the amended regulations. ii. Thirty percent (30%) or more of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for ownership by low- and moderate-income households (“For-Sale Affordable Dwelling Units”), throughout a period of thirty (30) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official. The For-Sale Affordable Units shall be administered in accordance with City regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of City Code 34-12(g), as such regulations are in effect on the date of Owner’s signature, below. During construction the For-Sale Affordable Dwelling Units shall be constructed incrementally, such that at least 5 Affordable Dwelling Units shall be either completed or under construction pursuant to a City-issued building permit, prior to the issuance of every 30th Building Permit for non-affordable for-sale dwelling units. iii. On or before July 1 of each calendar year the then current owner of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit shall submit an Annual Report to the City, identifying each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit by address and location, and verifying the Household Income of the occupant of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit. c. The land use obligations referenced in 1.b.i, 1.b.ii, and 1.b.iii shall be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants recorded within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney, so that the Owner’s successors in right, title and interest to the Subject Property shall have notice of and be bound by the obligations. In the event of re-sale of any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units that reduces the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units below the thresholds set forth in this proffer, the declaration of covenants shall provide a mechanism to ensure that an equivalent Affordable Dwelling Unit is created within the City of Charlottesville, either on or off of the Subject Property, that satisfies the requirements contained herein for the remainder of the Affordability Period. Staff Analysis: Page 17 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Not enough detail is provided describing the process or designating a City authority in the event the applicant choses to revise the reserved Affordable Dwelling Units (ADU) under section (b). This could create confusion should the applicant change the location or type of ADUs and could result in the applicant need to revise the proffer statement in the future. It is not clear under section (iii) how the monitoring and enforcement of the yearly reporting for privately owned ADUs will be addressed. Under (c), staff is concerned that the for-sale units could be resold at market rate resulting in the flipping of once affordable units under section (c). Staff is also concerned that the proffer does not address any off site ADU should section (c) of the proffer be enacted. Current R-1S and R-2 Zoning 240 Stribling PUD R-1S: The single-family residential zoning To encourage developments of equal or districts are established to provide and higher quality than otherwise required by the protect quiet, low-density residential areas strict application of zoning district regulations wherein the predominant pattern of that would otherwise govern. residential development is the single-family dwelling. R-2: Consisting of quiet, low-density residential areas in which single-family attached and two-family dwellings are encouraged. Included within this district are certain areas located along the Ridge Street corridor, areas of significant historical importance (R-1S and R-2 differ very little. Highlighted sections show additional requirements for R- 2) Physical Characteristics Physical Characteristics Front Setback 25’ min Front Setback 0’ min, no max Side Setback 5’ min (Single Family Side Setback 0’ min, no max Detached) 10’ (Single Family Attached) 10; (Two-Family) 50’ min (Non-residential) 20’ min (Corner Street Side) Rear Setback 25’ min (Residential) Rear Setback 0’ min, no max 50’ min (Non-residential) Page 18 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Adjacent to 5’ min, no max properties outside the PUD Land Coverage No limit outside setbacks Land Coverage No Limit outside setbacks Height 35’ max Height 55’ max Min Lot Size 6,000sqft (Single Family Min Lot Size No minimum lot size Detached) provided in the PUD plan. No requirement (non- When regulations are not residential) provided, existing code will Per dwelling unit: be used. 2,000 SF, min., 6,000sqft (Single Family 3,600 SF, avg. (Single Detached) Family Attached) No requirement (non- 7,200 SF, min., residential) 6,000 SF, min. for lots of Per dwelling unit: record prior to 08/03/64. 2,000 SF, min., (Two-Family) 3,600 SF, avg. (Single Family Attached) 7,200 SF, min., 6,000 SF, min. for lots of record prior to 08/03/64. (Two-Family) 2,000 SF, min. (Townhouse) Road Frontage 50’ (Single Family Road Frontage No road frontage No requirement (non- requirements were provided residential) in the PUD plan. When 20’ (Single Family regulations are not provided, Attached) existing code will be used. 50’ (Single Family Detached and Two-family) 20’ (Single Family Attached) No requirement (non- residential) 16’ (Townhouse) Parking 1 space per unit Parking 1 space per Townhouse 1 space per 1 or 2 bedroom multifamily No parking requirements were provided for single- family attached or multifamily over 2 Page 19 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD bedrooms. When regulations are not provided, existing code will be used. Residential Use (by-Right) R-1S R-2 PUD Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B B Adult assisted living 1 – 8 residents B B B Amateur radio antennas, to a height of 75 ft. B B B Bed-and-breakfast Homestay B B B Multifamily B Dwellings Single-family attached B B Dwellings Single-family detached B B B Dwellings Two-family B B Rowhouse/Townhouse B Family day home 1 – 5 Children B B B Residential Occupancy 3 unrelated persons B B B Residential Occupancy 4 unrelated persons B B B Residential Treatment Facility 1 – 8 residents B B B Non-Residential Use (by-Right) R-1S R-2 PUD Houses of worship B B B Attached facilities utilizing utility poles as the attachment B B B structure Attached facilities not visible from any adjacent street or property B B B Libraries B B Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; swimming club; yoga B B B studios; dance studios, skating rinks, recreation centers, etc. (on City-owned, City School Board-owned, or other public property) Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball courts, swimming B B B pools, picnic shelters, etc. (city owned), and related concession stands Utility lines B B B Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1976 R-2 Residential 1991 R-1A Residential and R-2 Residential (split parcel) 2003 R-1S Residential and R-2 Residential (split zoned parcel) Page 20 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Use Zoning North Two-Family dwellings R-2 South Moores Creek (County Side) Multifamily Eagles Landing East Single-Family Detached (Huntley PUD) PUD West County Single-Family Detached Staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive General Land Use Plan Map for density, but not consistent with housing type. The development may contribute to other goals within the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as listed earlier in this report. Staff also finds the type of use, residential, would be consistent with the existing development pattern in this area, but may be at a density that would not be supported by existing transportation and pedestrian infrastructure. In addition, the county is reviewing a proposed development at the western end of Stribling Avenue at on the southern side of the train track. This development (Granger Property) is approximately sixty-nine (69) acres and would consist of seventy-three (73) single-family detached dwellings. At the time of this report the proposed Granger development has been deferred. Should the applicant move forward they will need to obtain a special use permit from the county to build access across the floodplain. It is also the City’s understanding the proposed development would only have fire and rescue access from Stribling Avenue. Public Comments Received Community Meeting Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) and the Community Engagement meeting Requirements during the COVID -19 Emergency approved by City Council on July 20, 2020 On August 3, 2020 the applicant held a virtual community meeting with the public. The meeting can be viewed at: https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/lZeKCL9YA0tR7ymYCBFkm5?domain=us02web.zoom.us The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. Seventy- two (72) members of the public attended the meeting and voiced the following concerns:  PUDs is not appropriate and will not give the City what it needs.  PUDs are only used to pack in more houses without taking into account infrastructure.  The land should be developed by-right.  The development should not be connected to Morgan Court. Morgan Court is too narrow and cannot handle the increased traffic.  Traffic will be a problem.  Stribling Avenue lacks sidewalks and will not be safe if the development is approved. Page 21 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD  FSNA could support the project only if Stribling Avenue is improved.  Stribling Avenue will not be able to handle construction trucks for such a large and long- term development.  The City’s infrastructure will not support this development.  Stribling Avenue lacks lighting.  Stribling Avenue needs draining improvements.  Stribling Avenue does not have enough right of way to accommodate all the improvements it needs.  The development will double the units on Stribling.  Critical Slopes on the site should not be disturbed.  Stribling Avenue on the county side is not improved and cannot support the development.  People that live in this development will have to drive cars and cannot walk to places.  There is a playground near the proposed connection of Morgan Court to the development and the connection could impact it.  Stribling Avenue is a shared street with a lot of bicycle, pedestrians, and cars sharing the road. This development would change that. Other Comments As of the date of this report (August 30, 2021), staff has received the following concerns through emails and phone calls (any email staff received are attached and any emails received after the date of this report will be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council):  The proposed development will negatively impact the standard of living, safety, and property values in the Huntley development  Property and people will be injured if more traffic is allowed on Stribling Avenue.  Stribling Avenue needs to be widened and improved.  Adequate screening needs to be provided to block the development from the surrounding properties.  School buses have a hard time making it down Stribling Avenue.  The unimproved portion of Stribling Avenue needs to be finished before a big development goes in.  The proposed development will be good for the City, but the City needs to improve Stribling Avenue.  Parking will be an issue.  The scale of the project is not appropriate with the surrounding neighborhoods.  Affordable housing is important and needed in the City.  Umbrella magnolia and paw paw trees should be preserved or replanted. Page 22 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials, could contribute to some of the City’s goals within the Comprehensive Plan under the Land Use, Housing, and Transpiration sections. Staff finds that the proposed PUD offers a mix of housing types within a cohesive development with connectivity, open space, and access to Moores Creek that is not currently available and meets some of the goals of the PUD ordinance. Staff also finds that long-term affordability is a priority within the development as outlined in the draft proffer statement. Staff is concerned about other aspects and recommends denial for the following reasons: 1. Due to the lack pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure and road width of Stribling Avenue, a development of this size could have an adverse impact on both the improved and unimproved sections of the road. The applicant may be pursing different avenues to provide improvements to Stribling, but the PUD plan being proposed only offers to widen the north side of Stribling Avenue adjacent to the primary street entry. 2. Staff is concerned with the proposed connection to Morgan Court. Although connectivity and two main points of ingress and egress are needed for a development of this size, Morgan Court is not currently accepted into the City street network. Due to width constraints, lack of sidewalks, and unknown quality of construction, staff cannot say with certainty that Morgan Court will ever be accepted. This creates issues as it relates to the development having two (2) points of access on a publically maintained street. 3. Conflict between street trees and utility easements (particularly stormwater) have not been addressed. Staff is concerned the proposed setbacks, landscape plan (for street trees), and required utility separations (minimum ten feet) will not be satisfied. This may be addressed at final site plan, but staff is concerned the changes needed would result in the applicant needing to amend their PUD plan. 4. Staff is concerned the proposed private roads do not function as alleys nor provide connectivity and instead act as communal driveways. Private road “J” offers some connectivity with the connection to Open Space “B”. 5. Staff is concerned the Phasing Plan will not meet section 34-505(2) (The open space within each recorded phase may constitute fifteen (15) percent of the gross land area within that phase, or all required open space may be provided in the first phase.) without more details being provided. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM20-00002, including the critical slope waiver requested in P20-0079, on the basis that the streets proposed Page 23 of 24 ZM20-00002 240 Stribling PUD within the PUD Development are laid out in a manner substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and approval of the proposed PUD Development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. OR, 2. I move to recommend that City Council should deny approval of ZM20-00002 and P20- 0079. Attachments A. 240 Stribling Avenue PUD Development Plan Dated June 11, 2021 B. 240 Stribling Avenue PUD Supplemental Document Dated June 11, 2021 C. Application D. Traffic Study Dated April 2020 E. Emails received prior to August 30, 2021 F. August 3, 2020 Community Meeting Information G. Link to Critical Slope Wavier Application: https://www.charlottesville.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=1569&month=9&year=2021& day=14&calType=0 Page 24 of 24 Attachment A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 240 STRIBLING AVENUE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 500' RAIDUS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SEC 34-517) THIS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY CODE SECTION 34-517 (a). THE BELOW TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTS THE PUD REQUIREMENTS AND REFERENCES WHERE IN THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN THE REQUIREMENTS ARE ILLUSTRATED OR DESCRIBED. 34-517 (1)a A SURVEY PLAT DESCRIBING AND DEPICTING THE ENTIRE LAND AREA TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PUD DEVELOPMENT SITE, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF PRESENT OWNERSHIP, EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION(S) OF THE PARCEL(S) TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PUD. PAGE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 34-517 (2)a A NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF HOW THE OBJECTIVES DESCRIBED WITHIN SECTION 34-490 ARE MET BY THE PROPOSED PUD. PAGE 3: NARRATIVE 34-517 (3)a A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUPPORTING MAPS, AND WRITTEN OR PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA AND ANALYSIS WHICH SHOW: A. LOCATION AND SIZE OF EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER FACILITIES AND EASEMENTS; PAGE 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS B. LAYOUT FOR PROPOSED WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES; PAGES 6-7: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN C. LOCATION OF OTHER PROPOSED UTILITIES; PAGES 6-7: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PAGES 13-14: CONCEPTUAL DRY UTILITY PLAN D. LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT; LOCATION AND SIZE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED STREETS; PAGES 6-7: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PAGES 8-9: PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONS E. LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING CONNECTIONS TO NEARBY SCHOOLS; PAGES 6-7: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. PAGES 8-9: PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONS F. AN INVENTORY, BY TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBER AND STREET ADDRESS, OF ALL ADJACENT PARCELS WITHIN A FIVE HUNDRED-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PERIMETER OF THE PUD, INDICATING THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION OF EACH. PAGE 1: COVER SHEET G. A SITE INVENTORY OF THE SIGNIFICANT NATURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL FEATURES OF A SITE, INCLUDING AT A MINIMUM: HISTORIC LANDMARKS CONTAINED ON ANY STATE OR FEDERAL REGISTER; VEGETATION; EXISTING TREES OF EIGHT-INCH CALIPER OR GREATER; WETLANDS, TOPOGRAPHY, SHOWN AT INTERVALS OF FIVE (5) FEET OR LESS, CRITICAL SLOPES, AND OTHER, SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS OR FEATURES, AND A PLAN FOR PRESERVING, PROTECTING, UTILIZING AND/OR INCORPORATING SUCH FEATURES INTO THE DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF THE PROPOSED PUD. PAGE 10: ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 34-517(4)a A PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN. SUCH PLAN WILL IDENTIFY: A. PROPOSED LAND USES AND THEIR GENERAL LOCATIONS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, BUILDING AND SETBACKS; PAGE 4: LAND USE PLAN B. PROPOSED DENSITIES OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; PAGES 15-16: MATRIX OF USE TYPES C. LOCATION AND ACREAGE OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE; PAGE 4: LAND USE PLAN D. SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES; PAGE 4: LAND USE PLAN. NOTE, THERE ARE NO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES PROPOSED. E. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN AREA OF PUD. PAGE 4: LAND USE PLAN 34-517 (5)a A GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH FOCUSES ON THE GENERAL LOCATION AND TYPE OF LANDSCAPING TO BE USED WITHIN THE PROJECT AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL BUFFERING TREATMENT PROPOSED BETWEEN PROJECT LAND USES AND ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS; PAGES 11-12: LANDSCAPE PLAN 34-517(6)a A PHASING PLAN IF NEEDED. EACH PHASE SHALL INDIVIDUALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. PAGE 5: PHASING PLAN 34-517(7)a A STATEMENT FROM THE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT VERIFYING WHETHER WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE(S). ESTIMATED WATER AND SEWER DEMANDS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND ADEQUATE CAPACITY HAS BEEN VERIFIED. 34-517(8)a A STATEMENT FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL VERIFYING WHETHER ADEQUATE FIRE FLOW SERVICE DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST FOR THE PROPOSED LAND USE(S). THE FIRE FLOW TEST RESULTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AND APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHALL. COVER PAGE 1 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A ILLE, PHASE GAN COURT ILLE, LT E, TTESV ILLE, VILL MHS 2403 T SV COUR TESV TOP = 501.42' TES ZONIN LOT 16 41 137 MO HARLOTTE HARLO VARIABLE MO ZONIN LOT 15 INV. IN = 498.42' 8" TC 17 & T G: PUD OT 14 T TMP 18A-26 8 Y OF C 18A-140 HUNTLE TMP 18A-1 EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)) ZON 2, LOT COUR R 1 LT ARLOT G: PUD RG INV. OUT = 498.32'8" TC RLOT F C 8A-142 JAMES M. McMURTRY AND CYNTHIA T. PHAS RGAN COU RGAN LEY O P 18A-139 STRIBLINHGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) 139 MO LTD McMURTRY, TRUSTEES A D D 2, Y OF C N G: PU T 238 STRIBLING AVENUE : PU 2, MHS 3354 AN PHASE F CHA E CO H WIDT PHA MORG D 8'' W E 2, L S TLE TMP 1 TM P R INST. 20160000545 135 M LT D T TOP = 502.24 ING UR N ZONING: PUD INV. IN = 497.54' 8" TC ZONIN E YO TM T O M SE N U INV. OUT = 497.59' 8" TC EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (29-3) HUNTLE AVENUE 141 O *REVERSE FLOW NOTED M SHED HUN HUNT O ) ) HU N (F (F NTL E E EY TMP P IP CONC. S20°06'14"E 390.42' S P IP S20°17'15"E 275.57' 142 OF CH 18A-14 M A 4 PHA ORGARLOTT 4'' W 390.42' S N E ZON E 2, L COU SVILL ING OT 1 RT E, L : PU 9 TD D 5 N62°19'5 51 S0° S 26'0 122.97' TM HU H P1 9"W NTL UNTL 8A-46 EY EY, ZON COM LLC ±53 ING MON OHU 520 1 ' TO : PU D AREA 508 CENT 6"E 505 500 5 MHS 3217 MHS 3281 49 90 .43' ER TOP = 401.52' 510 5 0 4 TOP = 400.49' 48 S OF "W 48 475 0 INV. IN = 396.71' 10" TC INV. IN =395.66' 47 65 MO 515 0 *NOTE: MATERIAL CHANGE 4 46 455 OR 0 0 INV. OUT = 396.67' 10" TC 45 5°5 ' ES 0' 3 206 CR EEK 5 51 8'' W N8 4'' W C&G 450 S N56° 121.0 "E S 0 45 23' 35'36 5 395 39 2' MHS 3216 0 5 40 0 5 40 OHU 0 41 CHMARK "2" TOP = 402.95' 41 5 S 42 S47°58'11"W 42 0 5 43 S3 INV. IN = 396.93' 10" STEEL 0 43 OD W/CAP SAN 5 44 44 EV = 510.61' INV. OUT = 396.81' 10" STEEL ) 21' 2° 4' (F SAN )2 (F ) D (F 263.52' O 20 D D R O O 7 R 505 R '07 500 10.82' 5 N21°27'03"W WIRE FENCE 49 0 "W 49 485 MHS 2515 85.23' 0 480 SHED 51 TMP 18A-24-2 TOP = 502.76' JIAN GUO ZHENG INV. IN = 497.21' 8" TC C&G 252 STRIBLING AVENUE 5 135' 'INV. OUT= 497.18' 8" TC 47 INST. 2013006103 ZONING: R-2 E N LI 400 VARIA F SANITARY SEWER 470 ) O 4'' W (F W S EASEMENT D N S73°57'27"W STRIB O ' D.B. 380 PG. 553 BLE R .51 WIDTH UNSPECIFIED 465 1 MHS 2514 WIDT LING /W (SEE NO TOP = 503.08' INV. IN = 496.44' 8" TC HR TMP 18A-24 5 0 50 FRANCES W. LARNERINV. OUT= 496.44' 8" TC 46 AVEN 254 STRIBLING AVENUE 0 SAN 50 455 INST. 2014000085 495 UE E #11) ZONING: R-2 U MHS 2530 OH 450 T TOP = 497.88' S 05 ZONE AE INV. IN = 493.38' 8" TC ZONE X 4 178.67' INV. OUT = 493.30' 8" TC 5 44 0 49 S50 0 TMP 18A-24-1 44 PIEDMONT REALTY HOLDINGS I,LLC S 5 °36 256 STRIBLING AVENUE 43 40 0 58' INST. 2013003962 ZONING: R-2 485 0 '00" 43 395 MHS 2534 S 5 S MHS 2882 42 W TOP =501.27' INV. OUT = 493.49' 8" TC 480 TOP = 428.36' S0°35'43"E 420 INV. IN = 421.31' 8" TC N SA INV. OUT = 421.08' 8" TC 38' 395 415 16' SANITARY SEWER 475 S39°19'41"W±30' U 410 0 ) EASEMENT 21' 40 (F OH 470 D.B. 341, PG. 296 R O D S MHS 2542 E (F ) 465 SAN S SAN TOP = 484.68' IP N0° DB. 4 OB CIRC ER ) P E INV. IN = 478.75' 4" TC (NW) 48 S SAN TTESVILL ZONIN .352 (AC '35" S SAN SSAN CHARLO MARLE MHS 2995 LE 564 N W J. FELL INV. IN = 478.99' 4" TC (NW) CITY OF 7 O F ALBE TOP = 403.30' W MATT P 76B-2-1 COUNTY 695.05' CREEK INV. IN = 480.40' 8" TC (NE) G: R-2 460 TMP 76B-1 INV. IN = 398.08' 10" STEEL S 420 242 R E 5 INV. IN = 478.73' 8" TC (E) O MO MHS 2969 INV. OUT = 398.00' 10" STEEL 42 0 MAURY F. SHIELDS G CENTER 43 INV. OUT = 478.13' 8" TC .57' 435 633, P 240 STRIBLING AVENUE SANITARY SEWER ± 725' TO HE TMP 76B-2-22 CIT 0 DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) 44 MHS 2993 TM 520 NOB CIRCLE Y TOP = 419.37' EASEMENT CO OF CH 445 455 5"W ZONING: R-2 N27°32'3 BAOMIN WANG and HUI ZHAO ) UNT 0 INV. IN = 412.92' 8" TC D.B. 298 PG. 416 TOP = 405.59' Y O ARLOT (F 45 DB. 4803, PG.528 (AC) D FA ( F) WIDTH UNSPECIFIED INV. IN = 398.85' 8" TC O LBETESVIL D INV. OUT = 412.75' 8" TC ZONING: R-2 R O ) INV. OUT = 398.77' 10" STEEL ZONIN G.113 (AC) ZONIN G.740 (AC) MA RLELE S R (F NOB OCK 3 S ) DB.11 Y F. SHIELD MHS 2629 D NOB OCK 5 DB.47 IN QUARLE NOB OCK 3 (F O MAUR 76B-2-48 MART 76B-2-50 MHS 2859 G: R-2 TOP = 461.29' TMP 76B-2-37 D R G: R-2 ZONIN HILL G: R-2 G: R-2 G: R-2 TOP = 445.42' O ZONIN HILL ZONIN HILL INV. IN = 456.64' 4" TC (W) NOB NOB, LLC ) R , BL (F BOTTOM STRUCTURE = 437.27 , BL , BL INV. IN = 456.79' 4" TC (NW) DB.4662, PG.124 (AC) E IP U 47, P 69, P INV. IN = 439.32' 8" TC LOT 5 INV. IN = 456.44' 8" TC (NW) ZONING: R-2 P OH LOT 9 LOT 7 TMP TMP INV. OUT = 454.98' 8" TC INV. OUT = 438.74' 8" TC TMP 76B-2-46 MAURY F. SHIELDS DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) ZONING: R-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=80' PAGE 2 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A NARRATIVE PER 34-517(2) PAGE 3 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A SHARED ACCESS AND SHARED ACCESS AND SHARED ACCESS AND SHARED ACCESS AND MAINT. EASEMENT MAINT. EASEMENT MAINT. EASEMENT MAINT. EASEMENT 94.08' 69.02' 65.52' 72.77' 69.14' 77.02' 79.02' LOT 40 LOT 45 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 22 LOT 29 2,463 SF 2,393 SF 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 1 LOT 8 LOT 15 2,431 SF 45.5' R/W ROAD 'D' 2,658 SF ROAD 'F' 2,587 SF ROAD 'G' 3,512 SF 2,817 SF LOT 46 LOT 41 LOT 55 ROAD 'E' LOT 23 LOT 30 1,777 SF LOT 16 1,735 SF 50.00' LOT 9 1,561 SF 2,435 SF LOT 2 1,637 SF 1,554 SF 1,477 SF 1,956 SF LOT 42 LOT 47 LOT 24 LOT 31 1,909 SF LOT 10 LOT 17 1,851 SF LOT 3 1,699 SF 1,603 SF LOT 56 2,492 SF 1,596 SF 1,498 SF 1,507 SF SHARED ACCESS AND MAINT. EASEMENT 6.00' (TYP.) ROAD 'A' 6.00' (TYP.) SHARED ACCESS AND 52' R/W ROAD 'A' MAINT. EASEMENT 52' R/W LOT 48 LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 18 LOT 32 1,823 SF 2,649 SF 1,816 SF 1,237 SF LOT 25 1,350 SF LOT 4 LOT 11 1,326 SF LOT 58 LOT 65 1,314 SF 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 1,916 SF LOT 49 1,823 SF 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 19 LOT 33 1,537 SF 1,604 SF LOT 26 LOT 5 LOT 12 1,333 SF 1,433 SF ROAD 'I' 1,410 SF LOT 66 ROAD 'H' 1,401 SF LOT 50 LOT 59 1,511 SF 1,616 SF LOT 34 1,537 SF 1,604 SF LOT 6 LOT 20 LOT 27 LOT 13 1,674 SF 1,696 SF LOT 67 LOT 60 ROAD 'D' 1,407 SF 1,597 SF 42' R/W 1,683 SF LOT 51 1,742 SF LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A 1,677 SF 1,750 SF LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 2,354 SF 2,380 SF 0.35 AC 2,254 SF OPEN 1,641 SF 2,351 SF 65.50' SPACE B ROAD 'B' 69.00' SHARED ACCESS AND 46' R/W 55.68' 0.12 AC MAINT. EASEMENT 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 36 24.00' SHARED ACCESS AND 1,608 SF LOT 59 LOT 71 LOT 61 ROAD 'J' MAINT. EASEMENT LOT 52 1,864 SF 1,760 SF 1,677 SF 1,630 SF SHARED ACCESS AND LOT 37 22.00' 1,474 SF LOT 69 LOT 72 MAINT. EASEMENT LOT 53 LOT 62 1,705 SF 1,614 SF 1,853 SF 1,746 SF LOT 43 LOT 44 1,537 SF 1,494 SF LOT 38 23.90' 1,474 SF LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 1,865 SF 1,751 SF SPACE C 1,677 SF 1,630 SF LOT 39 4.28 AC 1,879 SF SHARED ACCESS AND MAINT. EASEMENT SHARED ACCESS AND ROAD 'C' MAINT. EASEMENT 52' R/W NOTES: PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' CONDOMINIUM PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM 11,375 SF 12,978 SF 19,038 SF 1. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS: FRONT: 0' SIDE: 0' REAR: 0' ADJACENT TO OUTSIDE PROPERTIES: 5' CENTERLINE OF SHARED USE PATH 2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 55' AND 15' ACCESS EASEMENT LAND USE SUMMARY: TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.373 Ac. (100%) R/W DEDICATION TO STRIBLING AVE. ± 0.060 Ac. (0.5%) TOWNHOUSE LOT AREA: ± 3.117 Ac. (27.4%) CONDO/APARTMENT LOT AREA: ± 0.996 Ac. (8.8%) PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ± 1.970 Ac. (17.3%) PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ± 0.470 Ac. (4.1%) OPEN SPACE AREA: ± 4.760 Ac. (41.9%) LAND USE PLAN SCALE 1"=80' PAGE 4 OF 17 83 NAD 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A MO PHASING NOTES: RG AN 1. THE FIRST PHASE COMPLETED SHALL INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION CT OF ROAD A, THE CONNECTOR ROAD TO MORGAN CT., AND PROPOSED . 8'' W IMPROVEMENTS TO STRIBLING AVENUE. PHASE 1A PHASE 1B PHASE 1C 2. ACCESS ROADS AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH EACH SUBSEQUENT PHASE AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A COHESIVE BLOCK FOR SAFE AND CONVENIENT ACCESS, 4'' W AND TO MEET ALL CITY ORDINANCES. 3. THE ORDER OF COMPLETION OF PHASES SHALL BE FURTHER ROAD G ROAD E ROAD F PHASE C PHASE D PHASE J REFINED WITH A FINAL SITE PLAN AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO CITY PHASE A PHASE B REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 4. UTILITY PHASING WILL BE PROVIDED AND COORDINATED WITH CITY UTILITY DEPARTMENT WITH THE FINAL SITE PLAN. ALL NEW CITY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD BE INSTALLED, TESTED AND ROAD A PHASE 1 ACCEPTED PRIOR TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. 8'' W 4'' W PHASE F PHASE G PHASE E ROAD I ROAD B ROAD H ROAD D PHASE H PHASE I ROAD J PHASE 1D PHASE 1E PHASE K PHASE L 4'' W PHASE 2 ROAD C PHASE N PHASE O PHASE M PHASING PLAN SCALE 1"=80' PAGE 5 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment A H R/W (SE COORDINATE TIE-IN TO SHED EXISTING WATERLINE WITH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL ONC. S CITYCUTILITIES APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' E 8'' W DEPT. APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' TIE TO EXIST. WATERLINE IN MORGAN COURT OHU 4'' W LOT 40 LOT 45 LOT 29 S LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 W LOT 1 S 24' 15 LOT 46 24' S 5 LOT 23 LOT 30 LOT 41 S LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN 24' LOT 31 LOT 42 24' LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 LOT 3 520 BIO W 505 500 5 49 W 49 0 W 510 W 5 0 OHU 22' 48 W 48 475 8'' W W W 0 30' 47 65 515 W 60 4'' W 4 455 22' S SAN W 0 30' S 4 45 SAN W S 5 51 SAN LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 C&G LOT 4 LOT 11 450 LOT 58 LOT 49 24' 24' LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 W SAN LOT 5 LOT 12 OHU LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 8'' W LOT 20 LOT 27 S LOT 6 LOT 13 4'' W LOT 60 W S LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 BIORETENTION #2 OPEN SPACE A 2,056 CF 20' OPEN 505 X 500 SAN SPACE B 5 WIRE FENCE 49 0 RETAINING WALL 49 485 APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' 0 480 SHED LOT 36 51 W OHU LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G 5 LOT 37 24' 47 UTILITY NOTES: SAN 1. 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES. WHERE UTILITIES LIE LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA W 470 WITHIN 10' OF PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY, ADJACENT EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED TO PROVIDE 10' WORK SPACE ON EITHER SIDE OF UTILITY. LOT 38 STRIW LOT 43 LOT 44 BLE 2. THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED STREET TREES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH CITY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE LOT 54 LOT 63 465 ADEQUATE SPACING FROM PROPOSED UTILITIES IS MAINTAINED. BLINGR/W (SEE N 3. PER CITY CODE, PROPOSED BUILDINGS SHALL PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST 10-FEET SEPARATION FROM PROPOSED AND LOT 39 IDTH EXISTING UTILITIES. 5 0 4. GAS SERVICE IS NOT ANTICIPATED AT THIS TIME. 50 46 AVEN OTE #11 W 22'W 0 W 50 30' 495 UE S SAN KEY MAP LEGEND SAN S TIE TO EXIST. WATERLINE IN MORGAN COURT PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE S 4'' W ) 20' PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE 0 49 SAN PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE S CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL PROPOSED WATER LINE W SA N ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 6 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN A LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP BIORETENTION #1 500 3,213 CF 5 49 W 49 0 W W 5 0 22' 48 S 48 475 0 30' 47 65 0 4 46 455 SAN S W 0 W 45 W S SAN LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 450 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 S W W SAN 0 SAN LOT 66 45 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT 5 LOT 34 395 39 0 40 5 SAN 0 5 40 LOT 67 0 41 LOT 60 41 5 W 42 BIORETENTION #3 S 42 0 5 LOT 51 43 0 43 5 44 LOT 35 5,663 CF 44 OPEN SPACE A BIORETENTION #2 2,056 CF S 20' OPEN 500 D SAN SPACE B 5 49 0 D 49 485 24' 480 LOT 36 LOT 71 W W S LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 52 5 LOT 37 24' 47 PROPOSED STORMWATER PROPOSED SAN STORAGE FACILITY SAN LOT 72 STORMWATER SAN LOT 62 LOT 69 LOT 53 250 LF - 72" CMP 400 OUTFALL W 470 LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C 465 LOT 39 0 46 W W 22'W 0 W 28' 50 455 S 30' SAN 495 S S SAN SAN S 450 SAN 5 ZONE AE 40 RETAINING WALL ZONE X 20' MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' 5 20' 44 0 SHARED USE PATH 49 PARCEL 'B' 0 PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM 44 CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL 4 35 WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' 0 43 S 5 42 480 420 N LEGEND SA CITY STD. TR-1 10' 415 475 TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE S N SA EASEMENT 410 U WITHIN 15' PUBLIC OH 470 ACCESS EASEMENT. PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE S SAN SA N 465 SS AN SAN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE SAN SAN SAN S SAN SAN S S PROPOSED WATER LINE W 460 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 7 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A ROADS E, F, G, H, I, J PRIVATE STREET NOTE: STREETS E-J MEET ACCESS DESIGN 44.5' STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOMES PER CITY (BUILDING TO BUILDING) ZONING ORDINANCE SEC. 34-390. 37.5' RIGHT OF WAY 0.5' C/L 5' 4' PLANTING 2' SIDWALK STRIP CG-2 12' 12' 3' 5' 0.5' 0.5' 2% ROLL-TOP CURB ROADS A, AND C LOCAL STREET - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 52' RIGHT OF WAY C/L 5' 5' 2.5' 10' 10' 8' PARKING 5.5' 5' 0.5' 0.5' 2% 2% CONC. SIDEWALK 2.5' CONC. SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP CG-6 CURB PLANTING STRIP ROAD B LOCAL STREET - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 46' RIGHT OF WAY C/L 5' 5' 2.5' 10' 10' 2.5' 5' 5' 0.5' 0.5' 2% 2% CONC. SIDEWALK CONC. SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP CG-6 CURB PLANTING STRIP PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONS PAGE 8 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A ROAD D (NORTH OF ROAD A) LOCAL STREET - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 45.5' RIGHT OF WAY C/L 5' 5' 2.5' 10' 10' 2.5' 4.5' 5' 0.5' 0.5' 2% 2% CONC. SIDEWALK CONC. SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP CG-6 CURB PLANTING STRIP ROAD D (SOUTH OF ROAD A) LOCAL STREET - PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY 42.5' RIGHT OF WAY 0.5' C/L 5' 4' PLANTING SIDWALK STRIP CG-2 10' 10' 3' 4' 5' 0.5' 2% 0.5' 2% CONC. SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP ROLL-TOP CURB PROPOSED ROAD SECTIONS PAGE 9 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A NOTE: NO CULTURAL FEATURES OR LANDMARKS WERE FOUND ON SITE. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES PAGE 10 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment A H R/W (SE APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' SCREENING SHED TREES (TYP.) RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL CONC. S APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' E 8'' W APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' OHU 4'' W LOT 40 LOT 45 LOT 29 S LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 W LOT 1 S 15 LOT 46 S 5 LOT 23 LOT 30 LOT 41 S LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN LOT 31 LOT 42 LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 3 LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 520 STREET W 505 500 TREES (TYP.) 5 49 W 49 0 W 510 W 5 0 OHU 48 W 48 475 8'' W W W STREET 0 5 47 515 W 46 0 4'' W 46 455 TREES (TYP.) S SAN W 0 S 45 SAN W S 5 51 SAN LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 C&G LOT 4 LOT 11 450 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 W SAN LOT 5 LOT 12 OHU LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 8'' W LOT 20 LOT 27 S LOT 6 LOT 13 4'' W LOT 60 W STREET S TREES (TYP.) LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 OPEN SPACE A OPEN 505 X 500 SAN SPACE B 5 WIRE FENCE 49 0 RETAINING WALL 49 485 APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' 0 480 SHED LOT 36 51 W OHU LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G 5 LOT 37 47 NOTES: SAN LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA W 470 1. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY TO THIS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SCREENING SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND REVISIONS COINCIDENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, TREES (TYP.) LOT 38 STRIW LOT 43 LOT 44 B AND, REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MODIFICATION. LOT 63 LE LOT 54 465 2. SIDEWALKS 5' MINIMUM WIDTH AS SHOWN. BLINGR/W (SEE N 3. PLANTING STRIPS BETWEEN ROAD AND SIDEWALK 4' MINIMUM EXCEPT ADJACENT TO PARALLEL PARKING. ALL TREES TO BE LOT 39 IDTH SELECTED FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE MASTER TREE LIST. 4. ARTERIAL TRAIL PRECISE LOCATION TO BE FIELD LOCATED IN COORDINATION WITH PARKS AND RECREATION. 5 0 50 46 AVEN OTE #11 STREET TREES (TYP.) W W 0 W 50 495 PLANTING SCHEDULE UE S SAN KEY MAP SAN S TY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MINIMUM INSTALLED SI E ROOT CANOPY AREA TOTAL 46 QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 2" CAL. B&B 370 17,020 4'' W ) 47 LIRIODNEDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP POPLAR 2'' CAL. B&B 387 18,189 0 49 PARCEL 'B' 71 MTRICA CERIFERA & CVS SOUTHERN WAXMYRTLE 2'' CAL. B&B 44 3,124 PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM S CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM 9 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM 2'' CAL. B&B 99 891 SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL CANOPY GRAND TOTAL SA N 39,224 ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 11 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN A LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP 500 5 49 W 49 0 W W 5 0 48 S 48 475 D D 70 5 0 4 46 46 455 SAN S W W 0 45 W S SAN LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 450 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 S W W SAN 0 SAN LOT 66 45 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT 5 LOT 34 395 39 0 40 5 SAN 0 5 40 LOT 67 0 41 LOT 60 41 5 W 42 STREET S 42 0 5 LOT 51 43 0 43 TREES (TYP.) 5 44 LOT 35 44 OPEN SPACE A S OPEN 500 D SAN SPACE B 5 49 0 D 49 485 480 LOT 36 LOT 71 W W S LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 52 4 75 LOT 37 SAN SAN LOT 72 SAN LOT 62 LOT 69 LOT 53 400 W 470 ENING S (TYP.) LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C 465 LOT 39 0 46 STREET TREES (TYP.) W W W 0 W 50 455 S SAN 495 S S SAN SAN S 450 SAN 5 ZONE AE 40 RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' 5 44 0 SHARED USE PATH 49 PARCEL 'B' 0 PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM 44 CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL 4 35 WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' 0 43 S PLANTING SCHEDULE 5 42 TY BOTANICAL NAME 480 COMMON NAME MINIMUM INSTALLED SI E ROOT CANOPY AREA TOTAL NOTES: 420 N SA 46 QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 2" CAL. B&B 370 17,020 THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITYCITY PUDTR-1 STD. 10' 415 1. TO THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 475 TREE PRESERVATION SUBJECT TO CHANGES SHARED AND REVISIONS COINCIDENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANNING, USE PATHARCHITECTURE, CIVIL ENGINEERING, N SA EASEMENT 410 AND, REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MODIFICATION. U TULIP POPLAR 47 LIRIODNEDRON TULIPIFERA 2'' CAL. B&B 387 18,189 WITHIN 15' PUBLIC OH 470 2. SIDEWALKS 5' MINIMUM WIDTH AS SHOWN. ACCESS EASEMENT. S 71 MTRICA CERIFERA & CVS SOUTHERN WAXMYRTLE 2'' CAL. B&B 44 3,124 3. PLANTING STRIPS BETWEEN ROAD AND SIDEWALK 4' MINIMUM EXCEPT ADJACENT TO PARALLEL PARKING. ALL TREES TO BE SA N 465 SELECTED FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE MASTER TREE S A N S LIST. SAN 9 OSTRYA VIRGINIANA AMERICAN HOPHORNBEAM 2'' CAL. B&B 99 891 4. ARTERIAL TRAIL PRECISE SAN LOCATION TO BE FIELD LOCATED IN COORDINATION WITH PARKS AND RECREATION. SAN SAN S SAN SAN S S CANOPY GRAND TOTAL 39,224 460 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 12 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment A H R/W (SE SHED CONC. S E 8'' W TIE TO EXIST. WATERLINE IN MORGAN COURT OHU 4'' W S W S S S W W W OHU W W 8'' W W W W 4'' W S S SAN W SAN W S SAN C&G CONCEPTUAL TIE IN LOCATION FOR ELECTRIC AND TELECOM SERVICE. TIE-IN LOCATION AND METHOD TO BE COORDINATED AND APPROVED W SAN BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND APPLICABLE OHU ELECTRIC AND DRY TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS. 8'' W S 4'' W W S X SAN WIRE FENCE SHED W OHU C&G SAN 4'' W VARIA W STRIW B DRY UTILITY NOTES: LE 1. DRY UTILITIES SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. FINAL DRY UTILITY LAYOUT AND BLINGR/W (SEE N IDTH DESIGN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND APPLICABLE ELECTRIC AND TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS. 2. DRY UTILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PLACED IN A DUCT AVEN OTE #11 BANK PER CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS AND DESIGN MANUAL. W W W UE S SAN KEY MAP SAN S TIE TO EXIST. WATERLINE IN MORGAN COURT LEGEND 4'' W ) PROPOSED ELECTRIC AND TELECOM SERVICE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER S N SA CONCEPTUAL DRY UTILITY PLAN SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 13 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A KEY MAP W W W S SAN S W W W S SAN S W W SAN SAN SAN W S S D SAN D W W S SAN SAN SAN W W W W W S S SAN S SAN SAN S SAN ZONE AE ZONE X S N SA DRY UTILITY NOTES: LEGEND 1. DRY UTILITIES SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. FINAL DRY UTILITY N PROPOSED ELECTRIC AND SA U LAYOUT AND DESIGN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF TELECOM SERVICE OH CHARLOTTESVILLE AND APPLICABLE ELECTRIC AND TELECOM S N SERVICE APROVIDERS. SSN AN PROPOSED ELECTRICSTRANSFORMER SA 2. DRY UTILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PLACED IN SAN SAN A DUCT BANK PER CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE STANDARDS AND SAN S SAN SAN S DESIGN MANUAL. S CONCEPTUAL DRY UTILITY PLAN SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 14 OF 17 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A MATRIX OF USE TYPES PAGE 15 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A A = ANCILLARY USE MFD = MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT B = BY RIGHT USE P = PROVISIONAL USE PERMIT CR = COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL T = TEMPORARY USE PERMIT A/S = ANCILLARY OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT DUA = DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA MATRIX OF USE TYPES PAGE 16 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment A PROFFER CONDITIONS PAGE 17 OF 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY STAFF IN ADDITION TO PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS SITE DATA: 240 STRIBLING AVENUE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA TAX MAP PARCEL: 18A025000 TOTAL PARCEL AREA: 11.373 ACRES ZONING: R1 AND R2 Sheet List Table OWNER: Sheet Number Sheet Title CARRSGROVE PROPERTIES, LLC 1 COVER 2 CRITICAL SLOPE EXHIBIT - ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINACE DEVELOPER: SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT 3 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 1A 4 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 1B DESIGN: TIMMONS GROUP 5 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 2A 6 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 2B SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: 7 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 3A PLAT OF RECORD 8 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 3B SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: 9 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 4A EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY TIMMONS GROUP MAY, 2017 10 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 4B THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE AE AND X AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY 11 OPEN SPACE PLAN MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE MAP NUMBER 51003C0269D, DATED 2-4-2005 PROJECT 12 PARKING PLAN MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: LOCATION 13 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN 55', EXCEPT THAT FOR ANY PORTION OF A BUILDING LOCATED WITHIN 75' OF LOW DENSITY 14 PRELIMINARY BMP / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHERE THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SHALL APPLY. 15 PRELIMINARY BMP / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 16 CONCEPTUAL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN CURRENT USE: VACANT LOT 17 PRELIMINARY PLAT 18 TREE SURVEY PROPOSED USE: VICINITY MAP PUD 19 TREE SURVEY 20 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS OPEN SPACE OWNERSHIP: ALL OPEN SPACE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION SCALE: 1" = 500' LIGHTING: LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3000 LUMENS. LAND USE SUMMARY: TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.373 Ac. (100%) R/W DEDICATION TO STRIBLING AVE.: +/- 0.060 Ac. (0.5%) TOWNHOUSE LOT AREA: ± 3.117 Ac. (27.4%) CONDO/APARTMENT LOT AREA: ±0.996Ac. (8.8%) PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ±1.970 Ac. (17.3%) PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ±0.470 Ac. (4.1%) OPEN SPACE AREA: ±4.760 Ac. (41.9%) TRAFFIC STUDY: ITE USE CODE 220; LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY 170 UNITS AM PEAK HOUR - 79 (18 ENTER, 61 EXIT) PM PEAK HOUR - 94 (59 ENTER, 35 EXIT) AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS - 1,244 ADT COVER SHEET 1 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B VARIABLE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE MO RG DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES STRIBLINHGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) AN CO WIDT 8'' W UR T AVENUE SHED CONC. S EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (34-1120(b 4'' W S 5 51 S EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (29-3) S S OHU 520 505 5 500 0 49 W W 4W9 5 0 510 W 475 0 5 S 48 0 48 W 47 515 46 46 455 W W S 45 S S 0 S 51 5 450 8'' W 4'' W C&G S 45 SAN 40 0 39 395 EXISTING 43 0 S 40 41 41 W 5 S OHU 0 42 42 CRITICAL SLOPES S 43 5 0 44 SAN 5 44 0 5 AS DEFINED BY 485 W 5 0 SAN 5 SAN W ORD. (29-3). 505 S EXISTING CRITICAL 500 D 49 WIRE FENCE SLOPES AS DEFINED 49 D 480 51 5 SHED BY ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)). 0 5 S 0 47 C&G 400 470 SANITARY SEWER VARIA 4'' W EASEMENT D.B. 380 PG. 553 STRIBIDTH R/W (S BLE W 465 WIDTH UNSPECIF LING 5 0 W 50 46 W AVENE NOTE #11 0 455 SAN 50 S E SAN S UE SAN S U 450 OH S 40 ZONE AE 5 ZONE X 49 5 5 ) 44 (29-3) EXISTING CRITICAL 0 S SLOPES AS DEFINED BY 44 5 40 490 CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO THE PORTION OF A LOT THAT HAS A GRADE IN EXCESS OF 43 TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT. INCLUDES SLOPES AS DEFINED BY CHAPTER 34, ZONING ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)). 0 30 ORDINANCE. 4 395 485 S 2.26 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE S 5 42 1.25 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0.60 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 480 420 (34-1120(b)(2)) N 395 415 SA DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% 475 410 U 470 OR GREATER AND: 40 OH S 465 0 SAN S SAN A. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZONTAL RUN OF GREATER THAN TWENTY (20) FEET AND ITS' TOTAL AREA IS SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE FEET OR GREATER; AND B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY S SAN S SAN SSAN 460 AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY 420 THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 43 435 0 42 1.63 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 44 SANITARY SEWER 0 5 0.17 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE OFF SITE 455 45 445 EASEMENT 0.75 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0.30 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 0 D.B. 298 PG. 416 WIDTH UNSPECIFIED NOTE: THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE U SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 27 FOR OH DETAILS. ENERGY DISSIPATER OUTLET SHALL NOT RELEASE FLOW ABOVE CRITICAL SLOPES. CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT - ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SCALE 1"=80' SHEET 2 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment B H R/W (SE APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL CONC. APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' E 8'' W OHU LOT 45 4'' W LOT 29 LOT 40 LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 LOT 1 LOT 46 LOT 30 LOT 41 LOT 23 LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN LOT 31 LOT 42 LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 LOT 3 OHU 8'' W 4'' W LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 LOT 11 C&G LOT 4 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 OHU LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 LOT 27 8'' W LOT 13 LOT 20 LOT 6 4'' W LOT 60 LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 OPEN SPACE A X OPEN SPACE B RETAINING WALL APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' LOT 36 OHU LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G LOT 37 LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 STRIW LOT 63 BLE LOT 54 BLINGR/W (SEE N LOT 39 IDTH AVEN OTE #11 UE KEY MAP 4'' W ) PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL ACCESS EASEMENT. APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 1A SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 3 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN B LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 LOT 66 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION LOT 34 EASEMENT LOT 60 LOT 67 LOT 51 LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A OPEN SPACE B LOT 36 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 LOT 52 LOT 37 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C LOT 39 ZONE AE RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' SHARED USE PATH PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL WITHIN 15' PUBLIC APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT WITHIN 15' PUBLIC U OH ACCESS EASEMENT. FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 1B TMP 76B-1 SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 4 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment B H R/W (SE APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL CONC. APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' E 8'' W LOT 45 4'' W LOT 29 LOT 40 LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 LOT 1 LOT 46 LOT 30 LOT 41 LOT 23 LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN LOT 31 LOT 42 LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 LOT 3 8'' W 4'' W LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 LOT 11 C&G LOT 4 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 LOT 27 8'' W LOT 13 LOT 20 LOT 6 4'' W LOT 60 LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 OPEN SPACE A OPEN SPACE B RETAINING WALL APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' LOT 36 LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G LOT 37 LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 STRIW LOT 63 BLE LOT 54 BLINGR/W (SEE N LOT 39 IDTH AVEN OTE #11 UE KEY MAP 4'' W ) PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL ACCESS EASEMENT. APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 2A SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 5 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN B LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 LOT 66 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION LOT 34 EASEMENT LOT 60 LOT 67 LOT 51 LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A OPEN SPACE B LOT 36 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 LOT 52 LOT 37 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C LOT 39 ZONE AE RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' SHARED USE PATH PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL WITHIN 15' PUBLIC APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT WITHIN 15' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 2B SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 6 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment B H R/W (SE APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL CONC. APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' E 8'' W OHU LOT 45 4'' W LOT 29 LOT 40 LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 LOT 1 LOT 46 LOT 30 LOT 41 LOT 23 LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN LOT 31 LOT 42 LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 LOT 3 OHU 8'' W 4'' W LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 LOT 11 C&G LOT 4 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 OHU LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 LOT 27 8'' W LOT 13 LOT 20 LOT 6 4'' W LOT 60 LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 OPEN SPACE A X OPEN SPACE B RETAINING WALL APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' LOT 36 OHU LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G LOT 37 LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 STRIW LOT 63 BLE LOT 54 BLINGR/W (SEE N LOT 39 IDTH AVEN OTE #11 UE KEY MAP 4'' W ) PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL ACCESS EASEMENT. APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 3A SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 7 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN B LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 LOT 66 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION LOT 34 EASEMENT LOT 60 LOT 67 LOT 51 LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A OPEN SPACE B LOT 36 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 LOT 52 LOT 37 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C LOT 39 ZONE AE RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' SHARED USE PATH PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL WITHIN 15' PUBLIC APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT WITHIN 15' PUBLIC U OH ACCESS EASEMENT. FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 3B SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 8 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 NG AVENEUNOTE #11) Attachment B H R/W (SE APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL CONC. APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' E 8'' W OHU LOT 45 4'' W LOT 29 LOT 40 LOT 22 LOT 8 LOT 15 LOT 1 LOT 46 LOT 30 LOT 41 LOT 23 LOT 9 LOT 16 LOT 55 LOT 2 LOT 47 OPEN LOT 31 LOT 42 LOT 24 SPACE C LOT 10 LOT 17 LOT 56 LOT 3 OHU 8'' W 4'' W LOT 57 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 LOT 11 C&G LOT 4 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 OHU LOT 50 LOT 59 LOT 34 LOT 27 8'' W LOT 13 LOT 20 LOT 6 4'' W LOT 60 LOT 51 LOT 35 LOT 21 LOT 28 LOT 7 LOT 14 OPEN SPACE A X OPEN SPACE B RETAINING WALL APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' LOT 36 OHU LOT 52 LOT 61 C&G LOT 37 LOT 53 LOT 62 4'' W VARIA LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 STRIW LOT 63 BLE LOT 54 BLINGR/W (SEE N LOT 39 IDTH AVEN OTE #11 UE KEY MAP 4'' W ) PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH WITHIN 15' PUBLIC RETAINING WALL ACCESS EASEMENT. APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 4A SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 9 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 LOT 42 LOT 47 Attachment OPEN B LOT 31 SPACE C LOT 56 KEY MAP LOT 57 LOT 64 LOT 48 LOT 32 LOT 65 LOT 58 LOT 49 LOT 33 LOT 66 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION LOT 34 EASEMENT LOT 60 LOT 67 LOT 51 LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A OPEN SPACE B LOT 36 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 LOT 52 LOT 37 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN LOT 54 LOT 63 SPACE C LOT 39 ZONE AE RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' SHARED USE PATH PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL WITHIN 15' PUBLIC APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ACCESS EASEMENT. CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT WITHIN 15' PUBLIC U OH ACCESS EASEMENT. FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN 4B TMP 76B-1 SCALE 1"=50' SHEET 10 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 50' 100' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B PHASE GAN COURT ILLE, LTD ILLE, E, TTESV ILLE, VILL T SV COUR TES V TES ZONIN LOT 16 137 MO HARLOTTE 41 HARLO VARIABLE MO ZONIN LOT 15 TMP 18A-26 17 & T G: PUD O T 14 T 8 Y OF C 18A-140 HUNTLE TMP 18A-1 ZON 2, LOT COUR R LT ARLOT 1 G: PUD JAMES M. McMURTRY AND CYNTHIA T. RG RLOT F C 8A-142 PHAS RGAN COU RGAN LEY O P 18A-139 STRIBLING McMURTRY, TRUSTEES 139 MO LTD A D D 2, Y OF C N 238 STRIBLING AVENUE G: PU : PU 2, AN F CHA PHASE CO H WIDTH R/W INST. 20160000545 P HA M O RG D 8'' W E 2, L TLE TMP 1 TMP R 135 M LTD ZONING: PUD ING UR ZONIN YO TM T O SE HUNTLE AVENUE TE #11) 1 41 SHED (SE HU HUN HUNT RETAINING WALL NTL RETAINING WALL EY TMP E NO RETAINING WALL CONC. APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' S APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' 142 OF CH 18A-14 M A 4 PHA ORGARLOTT 4'' W S N E ZON E 2, L COU SVILL 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 45 ING OT 1 RT E, L LOT 40 : PU 9 TD LOT 29 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 22 D S LOT 15 ROAD 'G' LOT 1 LOT 8 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 5 ROAD 'F' S LOT 46 51 S LOT 30 LOT 41 ROAD 'E' LOT 16 LOT 23 S LOT 9 LOT 55 TM LOT 2 HU H P1 LOT 47 NTL UNTL 8A-46 LOT 42 OPEN EY EY LOT 24 LOT 31 SPACE C ZON COM , LLC LOT 17 LOT 56 ING MON OHU LOT 3 LOT 10 : PU D AREA 520 505 500 5 W W 49 0 W 49 510 5 W 0 ROAD 'A' S 48 475R/W W 48 0 5 47 52' PUBLIC 46 0 W 515 46 ROAD 'A' W S 455 0 52' PUBLIC R/W S 45 S S 5 51 LOT 64 LOT 57 LOT 48 8'' W LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 4'' W LOT 11 450 C&G S37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 4 LOT 65 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 58 LOT 49 ROAD 'I' S ROAD 'H' LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 0 LOT 66 45 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION SAN LOT 50 WVARIES) PUBLIC R/W LOT 34 EASEMENT 5 395 39 LOT 20 LOT 27 0 LOT 6 LOT 13 40 5 0 LOT 67 W 5 LOT 60 40 S OHU 0 41 41 5 42 0 S 42 LOT 51 5 43 ROAD 'D' 0 43 LOT 35 SAN 5 44 LOT 28 OPEN SPACE 44 LOT 21 LOT 14 OPEN W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 7 OPEN SPACE A A AREA = SAN SAN AREA = 0.34 AC SPACE AREA = 0.13 B AC ROAD 'J' 0.34 AC S OPEN (WIDTH AREA =B0.13 505 500 SPACE D WIRE FENCE 5 RETAINING WALL D 49 0 49 485 APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' SHED LOT 36 0 480 TMP 18A-24-2 51 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 S JIAN GUO ZHENG LOT 52 C&G 252 STRIBLING AVENUE 5 INST. 2013006103 LOT 37 47 46' PUBLIC R/W ZONING: R-2 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 ROAD 'B' 400 VARIA 470 4'' W LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 73 OPEN STRIBIDTH R/W (S LOT 63 LOT 70 OPEN BLE W LOT 54 SPACE C 465 LOT 39 SPACE AREA = C LING TMP 18A-24 AREA 4.29 = AC4.29 5 0 W ROAD 'C' 50 FRANCES W. LARNER 46 W AVENE NOTE #11 254 STRIBLING AVENUE ROAD 'C' 52' PUBLIC R/W 0 SAN 50 INST. 2014000085 52' PUBLIC R/W S 455 E SAN S 495 ZONING: R-2 UE SAN S U OH S 450 5 ZONE AE 40 RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION ) 5 44 SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT 4 90 PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' 0 TMP 18A-24-1 PARCEL 'A' 44 CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PIEDMONT REALTY HOLDINGS I,LLC S CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM 35 CONDOMINIUM 256 STRIBLING AVENUE SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL 4 0 INST. 2013003962 WITHIN 15' PUBLIC 40 APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ZONING: R-2 ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' 0 43 S 395 S 42 5 480 420 N 395 SA CITY STD. TR-1 10' 415 475 TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT U WITHIN 15' PUBLIC 410 0 40 OH 470 ACCESS EASEMENT. S 465 SAN S SAN DB. 4 OB CIRC ER S SAN S C) SAN SSAN ZONIN .352 (A LE 564 N W J. FELL 7 MATT P 76B-2-1 G: R-2 460 420 5 42 0 G 435 43 TREE PRESERVATION 633, P TMP 76B-2-22 HE EASEMENT 0 520 NOB CIRCLE 44 TM 455 445 BAOMIN WANG and HUI ZHAO 0 45 DB. 4803, PG.528 (AC) ZONING: R-2 ZONIN G.113 (AC) ZONIN G.740 (AC) S S NOB OCK 3 DB.11 Y F. SHIELD NOB OCK 5 DB.47 IN QUARLE NOB OCK 3 MAUR 76B-2-48 MART 76B-2-50 G: R-2 TMP 76B-2-37 G: R-2 ZONIN HILL G: R-2 G: R-2 G: R-2 NOB NOB, LLC ZONIN HILL ZONIN HILL , BL DB.4662, PG.124 (AC) , BL , BL HU 47, P 69, P ZONING: R-2 LOT 5 LOT 9 LOT 7 TMP TMP O TMP 76B-2-46 MAURY F. SHIELDS DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) OPEN SPACE PLAN ZONING: R-2 SCALE 1"=80' SHEET 11 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B PHASE GAN COURT ILLE, LTD ILLE, E, TTESV ILLE, VILL T SV COUR TES V TES ZONIN LOT 16 137 MO HARLOTTE 41 HARLO VARIABLE MO ZONIN LOT 15 TMP 18A-26 17 & T G: PUD O T 14 T 8 Y OF C 18A-140 HUNTLE TMP 18A-1 ZON 2, LOT COUR R LT ARLOT 1 G: PUD JAMES M. McMURTRY AND CYNTHIA T. RG RLOT F C 8A-142 PHAS RGAN COU RGAN LEY O P 18A-139 STRIBLING McMURTRY, TRUSTEES 139 MO LTD A D D 2, Y OF C N 238 STRIBLING AVENUE G: PU : PU 2, AN F CHA PHASE CO H WIDTH R/W INST. 20160000545 P HA M O RG D 8'' W E 2, L TLE TMP 1 TMP R 135 M LTD ZONING: PUD ING UR RETAINING WALL ZONIN YO TM T O APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' SE HUNTLE AVENUE TE #11) 1 41 SHED (SE HU HUN HUNT RETAINING WALL NTL RETAINING WALL EY TMP E NO CONC. S APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT = 5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 3' 142 OF CH 18A-14 M A 4 PHA ORGARLOTT 4'' W S N E ZON E 2, L COU SVILL 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 45 ING OT 1 RT E, L LOT 40 : PU 9 TD LOT 29 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 22 D LOT 15 ROAD 'G' LOT 1 LOT 8 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 5 ROAD 'F' LOT 46 51 LOT 30 LOT 41 ROAD 'E' LOT 16 LOT 23 LOT 9 LOT 55 TM LOT 2 HU H P1 LOT 47 NTL UNTL 8A-46 LOT 42 OPEN EY EY LOT 24 LOT 31 SPACE C ZON COM , LLC LOT 17 LOT 56 ING MON OHU LOT 3 LOT 10 : PU D AREA 520 505 500 5 49 49 0 510 5 0 ROAD 'A' S 48 475R/W 48 0 5 47 52' PUBLIC 46 0 515 46 ROAD 'A' 7 455 0 52' PUBLIC R/W 6 45 5 3 5 51 LOT 64 LOT 57 LOT 48 8'' W LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 32 4'' W LOT 11 450 C&G 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 4 LOT 65 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 58 LOT 49 ROAD 'I' S ROAD 'H' LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 33 LOT 5 LOT 12 0 LOT 66 45 LOT 50 LOT 59 TREE PRESERVATION (WIDTH VARIES) PUBLIC R/W LOT 34 EASEMENT 5 395 39 LOT 20 LOT 27 0 LOT 6 LOT 13 40 5 0 LOT 67 5 LOT 60 40 S OHU 0 41 41 5 42 0 42 LOT 51 5 43 ROAD 'D' 0 43 LOT 35 SAN 5 44 LOT 28 44 LOT 14 LOT 21 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 7 OPEN SPACE A ROAD 'J' OPEN 505 500 WIRE FENCE SPACE B 5 RETAINING WALL 49 0 49 485 APPROX. MAX. HEIGHT =6' SHED LOT 36 0 480 TMP 18A-24-2 51 LOT 61 LOT 68 LOT 71 JIAN GUO ZHENG LOT 52 C&G 252 STRIBLING AVENUE 5 INST. 2013006103 LOT 37 47 46' PUBLIC R/W ZONING: R-2 LOT 69 LOT 72 LOT 53 LOT 62 ROAD 'B' 400 VARIA 470 4'' W LOT 38 LOT 43 LOT 44 LOT 73 OPEN STRIBIDTH R/W (S LOT 63 LOT 70 BLE W LOT 54 SPACE C 465 LOT 39 LING TMP 18A-24 5 0 ROAD 'C' 50 FRANCES W. LARNER 46 AVENE NOTE #11 254 STRIBLING AVENUE ROAD 'C' 52' PUBLIC R/W 0 SAN 50 INST. 2014000085 52' PUBLIC R/W 4 455 E 7 495 ZONING: R-2 UE U 8 OH 450 5 ZONE AE 40 RETAINING WALL ZONE X MAX HEIGHT = 6.5' CITY STD. TR-1 10' TREE PRESERVATION ) 5 44 SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT 4 90 PARCEL 'C' WITHIN 15' PUBLIC PARCEL 'B' 0 TMP 18A-24-1 PARCEL 'A' 44 CONDOMINIUM ACCESS EASEMENT. PIEDMONT REALTY HOLDINGS I,LLC S CITY STD. TR-1 10' CONDOMINIUM 35 CONDOMINIUM 256 STRIBLING AVENUE SHARED USE PATH RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL 4 0 INST. 2013003962 WITHIN 15' PUBLIC 40 APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' ZONING: R-2 ACCESS EASEMENT. 485 APPROX. HEIGHT = 10' 0 43 S 395 S 42 5 480 420 N 395 SA CITY STD. TR-1 10' 415 475 TREE PRESERVATION SHARED USE PATH EASEMENT U WITHIN 15' PUBLIC 410 0 40 OH 470 ACCESS EASEMENT. S 465 SAN S SAN PARKING CALCULATION: DB. 4 OB CIRC ER S SAN S C) SAN SSAN ZONIN .352 (A LE 564 N W J. FELL 7 MATT P 76B-2-1 G: R-2 TMP 76B-1 460 PARKING REQUIRED 420 5 MAURY F. SHIELDS 42 0 G 43 1 PER TOWNHOUSE x 73 TOWNHOUSES: 73 TREE PRESERVATION 435 240 STRIBLING AVENUE 633, P TMP 76B-2-22 HE EASEMENT DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) 0 44 1 PER 1- OR 2-BEDROOM CONDO X 96 CONDOS: 96 520 NOB CIRCLE TM 455 445 ZONING: R-2 BAOMIN WANG and HUI ZHAO 0 45 TOTAL REQUIRED: 169 DB. 4803, PG.528 (AC) ZONING: R-2 ZONIN G.113 (AC) ZONIN G.740 (AC) S S NOB OCK 3 DB.11 Y F. SHIELD NOB OCK 5 DB.47 IN QUARLE NOB OCK 3 PARKING PROVIDED MAUR 76B-2-48 MART 76B-2-50 G: R-2 TMP 76B-2-37 G: R-2 ZONIN HILL G: R-2 G: R-2 G: R-2 NOB NOB, LLC ZONIN HILL ZONIN HILL (2) SPACES PER TOWNHOUSE GARAGE: 146 , BL DB.4662, PG.124 (AC) , BL , BL CONDOMINIUM/APARTMENT PARKING: 124 HU 47, P 69, P ZONING: R-2 LOT 5 LOT 9 LOT 7 TMP TMP PARALLEL ON-STREET PARKING: 40 O TMP 76B-2-46 TOTAL PROVIDED: 310 MAURY F. SHIELDS DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) PARKING PLAN ZONING: R-2 SCALE 1"=80' SHEET 12 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS STOP FONTAIN E AVE FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK E G AV LIN SS RIB ST JEFFERSON PARK AVE A BYP TIE TO PROPOSED STRIBLING AVE. CITY SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS JOHNSON PROPOSED ELEMENTARY INTERNAL SIDEWALK NETWORK 5 MIN. 10 MIN. 15 MIN. .25 MI. .50 MI. .75 MI. PROJECT LOCATION PROPOSED TR-1 PATH FRY SPRINGS TIE TO EXISTING BEACH CLUB CITY PATH TOWARDS PUBLIC TRANSIT SUNSET AVE. BUS STOP IN TE R ST A TE 64 PUBLIC TRANSIT BUS STOP PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN SCALE 1"=500' SHEET 13 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 500' 1000' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B 8'' W 4'' W VARIABLE MO RG STRIBLINGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) AN CO WIDTH SCALE 1"=100' UR T AVENUE 83 CONC. NAD BIORETENTION #1 0 100' 200' 8'' W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W OHU 3,213 CF 4'' W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W ROAD 'G' 37.5' PRIVATE R/W ROAD 'F' ROAD 'E' STORMWATER OHU ROAD 'A' 8'' W ROAD 'A' 52' PUBLIC R/W SITE OUTFALL 4'' W 52' PUBLIC R/W BIORETENTION #3 C&G 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 5,663 CF ROAD 'I' ROAD 'H' BIORETENTION #2 OHU (WIDTH VARIES) PUBLIC R/W 2,056 CF 8'' W 4'' W TREE PRESERVATION ROAD 'D' 37.5' PRIVATE R/W EASEMENT ROAD 'J' X OHU C&G 46' PUBLIC R/W ROAD 'B' 4'' W VARIA STRIB LE B WIDTH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND E&SC NARRATIVE: LING /W (SEE NO U OH R ROAD 'C' AVEN ROAD 'C' 52' PUBLIC R/W 52' PUBLIC R/W UE STORMWATER QUALITY: TE #1 ZONE AE ZONE X 1) PROPOSED STORMWATER 4'' W PARCEL 18A025000 IS 11.373 ACRES AND IS PRIMARILY WOODED IN THE EXISTING CONDITION. 4.95 ACRES OF STORAGE FACILITY IMPERVIOUS AREA 1.65 ACRES OF MANAGED TURF IS PROPOSED. THE TOTAL PROPOSED LIMITS OF U TREE PRESERVATION 240 LF - 72" CMP OH DISTURBANCE IS 9.23 ACRES. WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET THROUGH 2.35 ACRES OF EASEMENT TREE PRESERVATION DEDICATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THREE (3) TYPE 2 BIORETENTION FACILITIES. 6.17 LBS/YR. OF THE 8.46 LB/YR. OF PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL WILL BE ACHIEVED ONSITE. THE REMAINING 2.29 LBS/YR. OF PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL WILL BE MET THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF OFFSITE NUTRIENT CREDITS. U OH STORMWATER QUANTITY: 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IN THE EXISTING CONDITION, SITE RUNOFF IS DIRECTED TO THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE WHERE IT U OUTFALLS TO A STREAM, JUST BEFORE MEETING MOORE'S CREEK TO THE EAST. THE SOUTHERN END OF OH THE SITE LIES WITHIN FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, ZONE AE. IN THE POST CONDITION, RUNOFF IS CAPTURED AND OUTFALLS TO THE STREAM NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. STORMWATER DETENTION IS BEING PROVIDED THOUGH 4 PROPOSED BIORETENTION FACILITIES, AS WELL AS A PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORAGE FACILITY ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE. CHANNEL PROTECTION: THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION HAS BEEN MEET FOR THE 1-YEAR, 24 HOUR STORM PER 9VAC25-870-66(B)3, "NATURAL STORMWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS." APPLICABLE APPROVALS FROM ACOE WILL BE OBTAINED TO OUTFALL TO THE STREAM. FLOOD PROTECTION: PER 9VAC25-870-66(C)3, STORMWATER SHALL E ANALYZED FOR FLOOD PROTECTION COMPLIANCE TO THE POINT WHERE THE SYSTEM ENTERS A MAPPED FLOODPLAIN. ADEQUATE CONVEYANCE OF THE 10-YEAR STORM IS DEMONSTRATED UP TO THE SITE OUTFALL. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE: E&SC MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK (VESCH) TO ENSURE SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF IS CONTAINED ONSITE AND TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT STREAM. FINAL DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS. PRELIMINARY BMP/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET 14 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B PRELIMINARY BMP/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET 15 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B 8'' W 4'' W VARIABLE MO RG STRIBLINGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) AN CO WIDTH SCALE 1"=100' UR DIVERSION DIKE T AVENUE 83 CONC. NAD 0 100' 200' 8'' W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W OHU 4'' W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W ROAD 'G' 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 5 SILT FENCE ROAD 'F' 51 LIMITS OF ROAD 'E' DISTURBANCE SAF 520 505 500 5 49 0 49 SEDIMENT BASIN #1 510 5 0 OHU ROAD 'A' 48 475R/W 48 8'' W 0 5 47 52' PUBLIC 46 0 515 46 ROAD 'A' 4'' W 455 0 52' PUBLIC R/W 45 5 51 450 C&G 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W SAFETY ROAD 'I' ROAD 'H' SAF 0 TP FENCE 45 OHU (WIDTH VARIES) PUBLIC R/W 5 395 39 8'' W 0 40 5 0 4'' W 5 40 0 41 41 5 42 0 42 5 43 ROAD 'D' 0 43 44 5 44 37.5' PRIVATE R/W TP ROAD 'J' X 505 500 5 49 0 49 485 10 480 TP 5 OHU TP C&G 5 47 46' PUBLIC R/W ROAD 'B' TP 4'' W 400 VARIA 470 TP STRIB LE B 465 WIDTH LING /W (SEE NO U 5 OH 0 R ROAD 'C' 50 46 AVEN ROAD 'C' 52' PUBLIC R/W 0 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 50 52' PUBLIC R/W 455 495 UE TP 450 TE #1 5 TP AE 40 ZONE X SEDIMENT BASIN #2 1) 4'' W ZONE 5 TP 44 0 49 0 DIVERSION DIKE 44 U OH 5 43 0 40 485 0 43 395 5 42 480 420 TP TP TP 395 TP TP TP 415 TP 475 TREE 410 0 TP U TP 40 OH 470 465 PROTECTION TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP 460 TP COORDINATE LOCATION OF PATH 420 TP 5 42 0 WITH CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 435 43 0 44 PARKS AND REC. PROVIDE SILT FENCE 455 0 445 U 45 OH DOWN GRADE OF DISTURBANCE. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE: E&SC MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK (VESCH) TO ENSURE SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF IS CONTAINED ONSITE AND TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT STREAM. FINAL DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS. CONCEPTUAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHEET 16 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA CHORD BEARING CURVE TABLE C5 39.50 16.09 8.16 23°20'41" S80°13'17"W CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD C6 39.50 20.79 10.64 30°09'26" N73°01'39"W 8'' W C5 39.50 16.09 8.16 23°20'41" S80°13'17"W 15.98 C7 39.50 25.15 13.02 36°28'36" N39°42'38"W C6 39.50 20.79 10.64 30°09'26" N73°01'39"W 20.55 C8 39.50 117.92 504.63 171°02'55" N64°03'08"E C7 39.50 25.15 13.02 36°28'36" N39°42'38"W 24.72 65.52' 77.02' 79.02' 4'' W 94.08' 72.77' 69.14' 69.02' C9 15.00 21.21 12.82 81°01'38" N70°56'14"W 25.65' 28.86' LOT 45 33.28' LOT 40 77.75' 81.53' 37.33' 30.03' 37.08' LOT 29 C8 39.50 117.92 504.63 171°02'55" N64°03'08"E 78.76 S68°33'12"W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 85.70' 34.06' 37.5' PRIVATE R/W S68°32'57"W 39.59' S68°32'57"W LOT 22 2,463 SF 71.00' 2,393 SF S68°32'57"W LOT 15 83.24' 73.00' 79.36' LOT 8 63.25' 2,431 SF 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 1 87.30' 2,658 SF 45.5' R/W ROAD 'D' 66.75' 2,817 SF 63.00' 59.50' 2,587 SF ROAD 'F' 3,512 SF 53.35' ROAD 'G' LOT 46 C9 15.00 21.21 12.82 81°01'38" N70°56'14"W 19.49 50.50' 89.85' LOT 41 LOT 55 ROAD 'E' LOT 30 22.00' 29.83' 50.00' LOT 16 LOT 23 1,735 SF 67.00' 1,777 SF 22.01' 2,435 SF 22.00' N68°32'57"E N68°33'02"E LOT 9 50.00' 65.00' 57.25' 1,561 SF 22.00' LOT 2 22.00' N68°32'57"E 1,637 SF 60.75' 22.13' 1,554 SF 57.00' 1,477 SF 1,956 SF 53.50' 58.54' 76.15' LOT 47 84.06' LOT 42 28.50' 87.61' 80.03' 88.08' LOT 24 LOT 31 1,909 SF LOT 17 28.00' 1,851 SF 28.95' 28.00' 28.00' LOT 10 25.74' LOT 3 LOT 56 28.00' 1,603 SF 27.96' 1,699 SF 25.74' 1,498 SF 29.00' 1,596 SF 65.00' 29.17' 2,492 SF 57.25' 1,507 SF 53.50' 74.75' 58.54' 57.00' 84.45' 629.45' N21°27'03"W 6.00' (TYP.) ROAD 'A' 6.00' 39.00' 29.30' (TYP.) 52' R/W ROAD 'A' 52' R/W 152.00' S21°27'03"E 95.90' 23.38 29 S21°27'03"E 426.93' 318.08' 25.00' LOT 57 LOT 64 .1 82.14' LOT 48 26.00' 5 LOT 32 5. ' 26.00' ' LOT 18 1,823 SF 72.91' 86.73' 2,649 SF 70 1,816 SF 26.00' 8'' W LOT 25 1,350 SF ' 1,237 SF 69.86' 26.00' LOT 4 LOT 11 C7 4'' W 1,326 SF 51.00' LOT 65 26.58 52.00' 22.00' LOT 58 97.99' N68°32'57"E 1,916 SF 1,314 SF 51.00' 47.50' LOT 49 S68°32'57"W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W 1,823 SF 98.00' 48.00' 22.00' 70.93' 75.80' C6 1,604 SF 72.91' S68°32'57"W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 19 LOT 33 1,537 SF ' 97.98' LOT 26 48.00' 69.86' LOT 5 LOT 12 1,333 SF 58.00' 1,433 SF 22.00' 1,410 SF 57.00' LOT 66 ROAD 'I' 22.49 22.00' C5 LOT 59 6.35' ROAD 'H' 1,511 SF 1,401 SF 57.00' 53.50' LOT 50 N68°32'57"E 66.27' 1,604 SF 72.91' 72.59' 1,616 SF 22.00' LOT 34 1,537 SF 70.00' N68°32'57"E LOT 27 ' LOT 6 LOT 20 C8 69.86' 70.00' LOT 13 64.00' 1,696 SF 22.00' ROAD 'D' 1,674 SF 63.00' LOT 67 5.5' R/W 198.00' 98.00' 24.00' 22.49 1,407 SF 59.50' 1,597 SF LOT 60 140.09' 1,683 SF 63.00' LOT 51 98.00' 1,742 SF S68°32'57"W 1,750 SF 24.00' 61.61' 198.00' LOT 35 OPEN SPACE A 1,677 SF 98.00' LOT 28 72.91' 72.59' ' LOT 21 0.35 AC LOT 14 2,380 SF 42' 2,354 SF 69.86' LOT 7 C9 28.00' 27.98' 2,254 SF N68°32'57"E 2,351 SF OPEN 28.39 1,641 SF 70.00' 73.00' 37.00' 65.50' SPACE B 37.00' N68°32'57"E 69.00' 34.00' ROAD 'B' 13.88' 55.68' 46' R/W 0.12 AC ' S68°32'57"W 77.59' 208.00' 67.91' S68°32'57"W 37.5' PRIVATE R/W LOT 36 69.86' 24.00' 24.00' 1,608 SF LOT 59 LOT 71 24.00' 66.99' LOT 52 LOT 61 24.00' ROAD 'J' 1,864 SF 1,760 SF 73.26' 1,677 SF 1,630 SF 67.91' 77.59' LOT 37 30.14' 69.86' 22.00' 32.00' 22.00' SF LOT 69 LOT 72 137.34' 66.99' 1,474 22.00' LOT 53 LOT 62 1,705 SF 1,614 SF 22.00' 83.78' 73.26' 1,853 SF 1,746 SF 1,494 SF 67.91' 77.59' LOT 43 LOT 44 1,537 SF 57.91' 57.91' LOT 38 69.86' 4'' W 22.00' 23.90' LOT 70 LOT 73 OPEN 66.99' 1,474 SF LOT 63 24.00' LOT 54 1,865 SF 1,751 SF 49.08' SPACE C 24.00' 1,630 SF 67.91' 77.59' 75.26' LOT 39 1,677 SF 4.28 AC 69.86' 28.04' 1,879 SF S21°26'29"E 307.34' 51.57' 15.42' S21°27'03"E 152.00' 51.95' ROAD 'C' 52' R/W 42.00' S21°27'03"E 562.76' 137.84' 28.68' 45.78' PARCEL 'C' PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'A' CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM 68.31' 11,375 SF 68.31' CONDOMINIUM 12,978 SF 19,038 SF 166.52' 190.00' 278.70' CENTERLINE OF SHARED USE PATH AND 15' ACCESS EASEMENT LAND USE SUMMARY: TOTAL SITE AREA: 11.373 Ac. (100%) R/W DEDICATION TO STRIBLING AVE. ± 0.060 Ac. (0.53%) TOWNHOUSE LOT AREA: ± 3.161 Ac. (27.8%) CONDO/APARTMENT LOT AREA: ± 0.996 Ac. (8.76%) RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA: ± 2.386 Ac. (21.0%) OPEN SPACE AREA: ± 4.760 Ac. (41.9%) PRELIMINARY PLAT SCALE 1"=80' SHEET 17 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B PHASE GAN COURT D LT PHASE GAN COURT D PHAS RGAN COU , LTD VARIABLE LT OT 14 RT VILLE, 2, L N COU , LTD 15 8A-140 139 MO TTESVILLE, CHARLUNTLEY OF 16 LE STRIBLINGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) 17 & RT HUNTL8A-141 CHAR UNTLEY O39 EY OF 18 ESVIL F 2, LOT E 2, LOT 2 8A-1 141 LOTT EY OF OTTES CHA HUNT 18A-14 PHA MORGESVILL WIDTH TMP 1 E 2, L TMP 18A-26 TMP 1 TMP 1 R L OTT OT JAMES M. McMURTRY AND 137 MO R L A CYNTHIA T. McMURTRY, TRUSTEES O H TMP O AVE CHARL H 238 STRIBLING AVENUE 135 M INST. 20160000545 SE R NUE HU NTL EY TMP 18" 10" 142 OF CH 18A-14 16" M A 4 PHA ORGARLOTT LOC OAK CED 22" 32" 10" SE N C ESV 8" 2, L OU R ILLE, L ASH POP 26" 22" CED 34" 30" CED 22" OT 19 T 8" 14" 12" POP POP MAP OAK HIK POP CED 14" TD 24" POP 10" OAK OAK 8" 48" 8" 8" 24" 8" 10" 8" ASH HOLLY OAK 26" CED CED POP 18" 18" POP 10" 14" POP 44" ASH POP 16" PINE 18" 14" 22" 26" BEECH OAK 26" 30" 18" (2) 14" 34" 14" MAP 32" POP BEECH 10" OAK OAK 14" POP TM HU HUN P 18A ELM 40" PINE POP 12" CHR POP 30" CED POP OAK 22" ASH 12" NTL T - 8" (3 TRUNKS AT 24") 16" 14" POP 18" OAK EY LEY, 46 16" 10" POP CO LL HOLLY 26" ASH CHR 12" OAK 22" MM 28" POP OAK 30" 14" 20" 14" POP 14" ON BEECH 14" POP MAP POP 42" POP 44" 28" 16" MAP 42" OAK 28" POP 10" 8" 12" POP 34" POP 40" 32" CHR POP 28" 14" POP POP POP ASH ELM 12" MAP 30" MAP APPLE 8" POP 10" 12" TMP 18A-25 ASH 42" OAK 30" POP 12" POP 26" POP 8" POP POP 12" 36" MAP CARRSGROVE PROPERTIES, LLC 26" 16" POP 28" 30" 12" 24" 14" MAP 36" POP 24" POP POP 24" 10" GUM 240 STRIBLING AVENUE 24" POP 12" POP 18" POP MAP POP POP 10" ASH LOC POP POP 18" CED 10" DOGWOOD DB.871, PG. 944 30" 8" POP 12" 16" 26" MAP 44" 14" ±11.373 ACRES GUM ELM 8" 46" 28" POP 10" 22" POP 12" POP POP POP 42" 14" 20" POP 16" 36" POP POP POP 24" POP LOC ASH 8" 16" 8" 42" POP POP 16" 12" OAK 10" 8" (2) 30" WALNUT MUL 14" 8" 22" POP 10" POP MAP POP 10" POP 18" 30" OAK 10" ASH 28" OAK MAP 26" 36" 8" 14" 14" 22" 42" DOGWOOD 8" 22" OAK 8" 24" 26" POP POP 8" OAK 24" ELM 26" 26" ELM OAK POP POP POP POP 40" MAP 8" MAP 38" 12" ELM LOC 22" 28" 10" POP ELM 16" POP POP 10" MAP 14" POP 12" LOC 8" 20" 16" PINE 16" 16" OAK PINE POP 8" OAK MAP 14" 22" 12" POP 12" 12" 12" 18" CED CHR OAK DOGWOOD (DOUBLE) HIK ELM 10" 26" POP 24" 12" 24" 8" 24" 12" 14" 20" 10" (2) CHR 28" POP 26" POP 20" POP POP OAK 10" 18" 12" ASH LOC GUM 8" 10" 10" 8" 10" POP POP 12" POP 12" CED 22" ELM ASH 26" 10" ELM LOC SYC CHR POP CHR OAK POP CHR CED 16" 16" 26" 20" 24" 10" 11" 8" CHR 24" POP 18" 30" 16" POP POP 8" ASH POP 10" OAK POP 14" OAK 16" 14" 18" ASH 18" 12" 14" POP 12" 28" 16" 8" OAK CED CED CHR CED 10" 16" POP CHR 30" (2) 10" 14" 12" 10" POP OAK POP 12" 32" MAP OAK POP POP 11" 8" 8" POP OAK 16" 18" MAP 14" 8" 16" 20" 10" ASH 12" CHROAK 14" 24" OAK 16" 12" 12" OAK LEANING 30" POP OAK 12" CED OAK 8" POP 24" POP 14" 8" PINE 8" OAK POP 20" OAK 18" 16" POP OAK (2) CHR 10" 8" TMP 18A-24-2 18" OAK POP CED 14" 20" 10" 8" OAK 28" PINE CHR CHR JIAN GUO ZHENG 12" CHR 24" POP 14" 16" 16" 8" CED POP 8" MAP CHR 34" CHR POP 18" POP (3) 18" 10" 252 STRIBLING AVENUE 8" 12" OAK CHR 12" MAP 16" 10" 8" INST. 2013006103 MAP 16" OAK 14" 18" 8" POP 14" POP 12" 10" CED 14" OAK CHR POP PINE PINE 8" POP 16" CED 10" CHR POP 8" 10" 8" 10" CED 8" 18" POP 8" 8" 8" POP 10" 8" POP PINE OAK OAK 18" 14" & 24" CHR 20" 14" CED 12" MAP 12" MUL 8" OAK PINE POP CHR 14" 10" OAK 14" 8" 12" 8" CHR 8" PINE CHR 10" 16" 10" POP 10" POP POP OAK (2) 10" 8" 8" 8" 24" OAK 18" POP POP 8" CHR OAK 12" 12" 10" 36" 10" POP POP 14" OAK (2) 14" TMP 18A-24 12" 8" 12" 8" 12" 10" POP MAP 30" 8" POP CHR 8" (3) OAK POP 18" MAP POP 8" 8" OAK FRANCES W. LARNER 10" 10" 12" 12" CHR POP 16" POP POP 16" POP 10" 254 STRIBLING AVENUE 16" POP OAK KEY MAP INST. 2014000085 CHR 16" CHR 14" OAK 12" 14" POP 30" 8" POP 10" OAK 8" 10" 8" 10" POP CHR 12" 8" 12" 14" 12" POP SYC 12" MAP POP POP 20" 18" 20" 10" 14" 20" 22" OAK PINE 10" OAK 22" 8" POP 18" POP 26" POP 10" 22" CHR 16" MAP POP 8" MAP 10" MAP POP POP 8" POP POP PINE 16" 20" 10" 8" OAK 10" 12" 20" POP 16" POP 16" 8" POP POP OAK 10" 8" POP POP 8" POP PINE 14" POP 18" OAK 14" POP POP 18" 18" 16" 12" 14" 12" 14" POP 20" PINE 12" 8" 10" SYC CED POP 10" CED 12" OAK 10" OAK 8" 36" OAK PINE 10" POP POP POP 10" 8" CHR 16" 8" POP 10" 12" 8" 20" POP 16" POP TMP 18A-24-1 MAP 18" POP POP POP POP 16" POP 20" 8" 12" 8" CHR 8" PIEDMONT REALTY HOLDINGS I,LLC 8" 12" CHR 14" 10" 8" 18" POP 8" POP 8" 24" POP 8" 12" 8" 14" 14" OAK POP 16" 30" 28" POP 14" CHR POP 10" 256 STRIBLING AVENUE SYC 8" CED POP CED 8" 18" PINE OAK POP OAK OAK PINE POP PINE POP INST. 2013003962 18" 8" 20" 22" POP MAP POP CED POP 12" OAK 18" 10" 8" (4) 18" 8" 8" TREE SURVEY 14" POP POP 20" SCALE 1"=60' SHEET 18 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 60' 120' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 HU HUN NTL T 16" 10" POP Attachment B EY LEY, CO LLC CHR 12" OAK 22" MM OAK 30" 14" 20" 14" 14" ON 14" POP MAP POP 42" POP POP 44" A REA KEY MAP 16" MAP 42" OAK 28" POP 10" 8" 12" POP 34" CHR POP 14" POP POP POP MAP 30" POP 10" 12" 30" 26" 42" OAK POP 12" POP 8" POP POP POP MAP 16" 28" 24" 14" 22" 36" 26" POP POP 30" 12" 24" 24" OAK POP MAP POP POP 24" POP 12" 18" POP POP POP 10" LOC POP POP 18" CED 8" 8" POP POP 30" 26" MAP 44" 14" POP 10" 22" POP 12" POP POP 46" 28" POP 42" 48" POP 16" 36" POP POP POP 24" POP 8" OAK 42" POP POP 16" 12" 18" OAK OAK 22" 10" 8" 14" 8" POP 10" POP CHR POP 10" POP 30" OAK 10" 28" OAK MAP 26" 36" 32" 22" 14" OAK 14" 22" 42" 30" POP 8" 24" 26" POP POP 8" OAK POP ELM OAK POP POP POP POP MAP 8" 24" 28" 10" 40" POP POP 16" 26" 22" 16" 16" POP POP 10" MAP 14" POP 10" POP 20" OAK 8" 20" 16" POP PINE POP 12" OAK POP PINE 8" OAK 12" 12" 12" OAK 10" 26" POP 24" 12" 24" 18" 8" POP 26" POP POP POP 8" (2) CHR 28" 20" POP 30" OAK 10" POP POP 26" 10" 8" 10" POP 12" 30" 28" POP SYC 10" LOC CHR POP CHR 16" OAK 26" POP POP 16" 24" 16" CHR POP POP 14" 12" POP POP 14" 12" 14" POP 28" 8" OAK CHR 16" 30" 22" (2) POP 10" 14" 12" 10" POP OAK POP POP 32" MAP OAK POP POP 36" 8" 8" POP OAK 18" 16" 16" 20" 12" POP OAK 12" OAK CHR 14" OAK 16" 12" 14" LEANING 30" POP OAK 12" 36" 8" 8" POP 24" POP 14" 8" PINE 8" OAK POP POP 20" OAK 18" 16" POP OAK POP (2) CHR POP 10" 10" 18" OAK CED 14" 20" 10" 28" PINE CHR OAK 12" CHR 24" POP 16" 16" 8" CHR 12" 14" POP 8" MAP CHR 34" CHR POP 18" POP (3) 18" 10" MAP 16" 8" OAK CHR 12" 10" 12" MAP 16" OAK 14" 18" 8" 14" POP 12" CED 12" MAP 16" OAK 8" POP 10" OAK CHR POP PINE PINE 14" 8" POP 16" CED 10" 24" 42" OAK CHR POP 8" 10" 8" OAK 10" CED 8" 18" POP 8" 8" 24" POP POP 10" 8" PINE OAK 18" OAK 10" 8" 14" & 24" CHR 20" 14" CED 12" POP OAK POP MUL 8" MAP 30" OAK 14" PINE POP CHR 8" 12" 10" 20" 18" POP 14" 8" 10" POP 10" CHR 8" CHR POP PINE 16" POP CHR 10" 24" OAK POP OAK (2) 10" 8" 8" 8" 10" 10" POP POP OAK REEK 18" 12" 12" 8" CHR 16" POP 10" 10" POP 14" OAK (2) 14" POP 36" 8" 8" POP 10" POP 8" 40" POP 30" 12" 12" POP CHR 22" POP MAP 8" 18" MAP POP 8" 8" OAK 8" OAK OAK POP 16" POP POP 10" 10" POP 8" MOORE'S C 10" 12" 12" CHR 16" POP POP 10" MAP 10" POP OAK POP 20" 16" 16" POP POP MAP CHR CHR 14" 14" 10" OAK 10" 12" POP 30" 8" OAK 8" 10" 8" POP CHR 12" 14" 8" POP 14" 12" MAP POP 12" POP 12" SYC 12" 18" 20" POP 10" 10" POP 20" 10" 16" 22" 14" 20" 22" 26" OAK PINE OAK 22" 8" POP POP 26" 18" POP POP 10" POP 22" CHR 16" MAP POP 8" MAP 10" MAP POP POP 8" 10" 8" 16" MAP 12" POP POP PINE 16" 20" 10" POP POP 12" OAK 8" OAK 10" 12" 20" POP 16" POP 16" 8" POP POP OAK 10" 8" 8" OAK POP POP PINE POP 18" 20" MAP OAK POP 8" 14" POP 14" POP POP 18" 18" 16" 12" 14" 12" 14" POP 20" PINE 12" 8" 10" 8" 10" 18" 24" 42" SYC CED POP 10" CED 12" OAK 10" OAK 8" POP PINE 36" OAK PINE 10" POP POP 10" POP DOUBLE POP 10" 8" CHR 16" 8" 18" 14" OAK POP 10" 12" 8" 20" POP CHR POP 12" 16" POP POP POP POP POP POP 18" POP 16" 20" POP MAP 10" 8" 12" 8" CHR 8" CHR 8" 8" POP 8" 12" 8" 8" POP 8" 14" 8" 12" 14" 14" OAK POP POP 18" 16" 30" 28" PINE POP POP 14" 24" CHR POP 10" SYC CED POP CED 8" 18" PINE 8" OAK OAK 22" OAK POP PINE POP 8" 22" 10" 18" MAP POP 20" 10" 8" (4) 24" MAP POP CED POP 12" OAK 18" POP 18" 14" POP POP 20" 8" 8" POP 26" 14" 20" 16" 20" 18" SYC MAP POP OAK 14" 10" 18" 10" PINE OAK 30" POP 16" SYC POP POP PINE OAK 8" PINE POP 12" 36" 8" 10" 34" POP 8" 18" POP 10" 8" BIR 8" OAK 14" 16" 10" MAP POP 10" 12" 28" PINE POP POP 10" 8" 16" 8" MAP 8" MAP 10" 14" BIR POP PINE POP 10" OAK OAK POP SYC 42" 10" POP 10" POP 14" POP POP 10" 8" 24" 40" 12" 12" POP CED MAP 8" 28" 8" OAK PINE OAK 14" OAK 10" POP OAK SYC 12" POP POP POP POP 12" 16" 8" 24" 18" SYC 18" 18" 20" 8" 10" 8" 10" POP POP OAK POP POP 10" 24" POP 10" BIR 8" POP POP BIR 24" 16" 16" 12" 26" 20" 12" 8" 20" POP POP POP POP POP POP OAK POP POP 8" 18" POP 12" OAK OAK PINE POP 32" 42" 10" 10" OAK OAK 18" POP 14" 8" 18" 10" OAK POP 18" POP 8" 16" 10" 20" 12" 8" POP 24" 8" POP MAP POP 34" 24" 8" 20" 10" POP POP POP POP OAK 18" OAK POP POP POP 8" POP POP 20" 16" POP POP 12" SYC 8" 18" 8" 40" 28" POP POP POP POP 26" POP POP POP OAK 28" CHR 10" 16" 8" 12" 8" 18" POP 12" 14" 12" 12" POP 18" POP 16" POP POP OAK POP POP 24" POP POP OAK POP POP 18" TMP 76B-1 28" POP 42" 16" POP MAURY F. SHIELDS 42" POP 14" 240 STRIBLING AVENUE 8" OAK POP OAK DB.1147, PG.113 (AC) 12" TMP 76B-2-22 520 NOB CIRCLE BAOMIN WANG and HUI ZHAO DB. 4803, PG.528 (AC) C) .740 (AS C) DB.47 IN QUARLE .113 (A S MART 76B-2-50 DB.11 Y F. SHIELD NOB H OCK 3 NOB H OCK 3 MAUR 76B-2-48 NOB H OCK 5 69, PG ILL ILL TMP 76B-2-46 TREE SURVEY ILL 47, PG , BL , BL TMP , BL TMP LOT 5 LOT 7 LOT 9 SCALE 1"=60' SHEET 19 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 83 NAD 0 60' 120' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment B TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN SAFETY FENCE CITY STANDARD TREE PROTECTION DETAIL No Scale No Scale 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X4" TRENCH 2. STAPLE WIRE FENCING TO THE UPSLOPE ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. POSTS. COMPACTED SOIL 6' MAX. 18" MIN. FLOW FLOW 4" 4.5' MIN. 3. ATTACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO THE 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE EXCAVATED WIRE FENCE AND EXTEND IT INTO THE SOIL. TRENCH. TEMPORARY DIVERSION DIKE FLOW No Scale EXTENSION OF FABRIC AND WIRE INTO THE TRENCH. FILTER FABRIC WIRE SF 3.05-1 SILT FENCE (WITH WIRE SUPPORT) No Scale EROSION CONTROL DETAILS SHEET 20 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Stribling Avenue Charlottesville, VA Prepared for: Southern Development By: Jeanie Alexander, P.E. EPR, P.C. 902 E. Jefferson Street, Unit 101 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 April 2020 Attachment D ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES 902 EAST JEFFERSON STREET #101, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Executive Summary This report provides a summary of the traffic impact analysis for the Stribling Avenue project in support of the rezoning application. Located in the City of Charlottesville, the site is currently vacant, and the land uses adjacent to the site are residential. The site is bounded by Stribling Avenue to the north, Sunset Avenue to the south, Morgan Court and the Huntley Development to the east, and the Albemarle County border to the west as shown in Figure 1. The traffic counts collected for this study were doubled to address the atypical conditions due to the COVID 19 precautions. While the counts were conducted prior to the Governor’s Stay at Home Order, there is no doubt the traffic volumes collected underrepresent normal conditions. However, it should be noted that doubling the traffic volumes, specifically on the side streets, likely results in a conservatively high estimate of typical traffic conditions. The proposed land use includes: 170 residential units comprised of 74 townhomes and 96 apartments. Access to the site will be provided via Stribling Avenue and Morgan Court. The trip generation for the site is shown in the table below. Site Trip Generation AM PM Land Use LU unit qty daily in out total in out total apartments & townhomes 220 du 170 1244 18 61 79 60 35 95 The site trip distribution, based on existing traffic patterns and agreed upon by City staff, follows: 67% to/from the north via JPA, 17% to/from the east via Cleveland Avenue, and 16% to/from the south via JPA. Included within this study are analyses of existing conditions, future no build conditions, and future build conditions for the years 2024 and 2030 at the following intersections: JPA/Stribling Avenue, JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue, and Stribling Avenue/proposed driveway. The analysis results based on the adjusted traffic volumes indicate that today all movements operate at LOS C or better during the morning peak period and that during the afternoon peak period the side street approaches to JPA currently operate at LOS E (Stribling Avenue and Sunset Avenue) and F (Cleveland Avenue). The traffic associated with the Stribling Avenue project is expected to have a minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network. The most significant impact is expected at the intersection of JPA/Stribling Avenue. To address this impact, an eastbound left turn lane at the intersection is not feasible, however, a northbound left turn lane on JPA was considered and while the levels of service and delay are unchanged by this improvement, it had a notable impact on the queues during the afternoon peak period. Compared to the respective no build conditions, the queue on the eastbound Stribling Avenue approach to JPA is only expected to increase by 44 feet (fewer than two vehicles) in 2024 and 76 feet (approximately three vehicles) in 2030. i Attachment D ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES 902 EAST JEFFERSON STREET #101, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Transportation Network ............................................................................................. 1 Existing Traffic Volumes........................................................................................................... 2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Operations ..................................................................................... 3 Future 2024 and 2030 No Build Conditions .................................................................................... 4 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 4 Future Transportation Network .............................................................................................. 4 Future No Build 2024 and 2030 Traffic Volumes..................................................................... 4 Future No Build 2024 and 2030 Peak Hour Traffic Operations ............................................... 4 Future 2024 and 2030 Build Conditions .......................................................................................... 6 Site Trip Generation................................................................................................................. 6 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................... 6 Future Build 2024 and 2030 Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... 6 Future Build 2024 and 2030 Traffic Operations ...................................................................... 6 Potential Mitigation Improvements ........................................................................................ 9 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................. 10 List of Tables 1 Study Area Roadway Characteristics .................................................................................1 2 Existing Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues .................................................3 3 2024 No Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues ......................................5 4 2030 No Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues ......................................5 5 Site Trip Generation ...........................................................................................................6 6 2024 Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues ............................................8 7 2030 Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues ............................................8 8 JPA/Stribling Build Conditions with Mitigation Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues ......9 List of Figures 1 Site Location and Study Intersections .............................................................................11 2 Adjusted 2020 Traffic Volumes........................................................................................12 3 2024 No Build Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................13 4 2030 No Build Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................14 5 Site Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................15 6 Site Trip Assignment ........................................................................................................16 7 2024 Build Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................17 8 2030 Build Traffic Volumes ..............................................................................................18 ii Attachment D ENGINEERING & PLANNING RESOURCES 902 EAST JEFFERSON STREET #101, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 Appendices A Traffic Counts B Existing Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts C Sunset/Fontaine Connector Road Information D 2024 No Build Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts E 2030 No Build Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts F 2024 Build Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts G 2030 Build Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts H 2024 Build with Mitigation Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts I 2030 Build with Mitigation Synchro/SimTraffic Printouts iii Attachment D Introduction This report provides a summary of the traffic impact analysis for the Stribling Avenue project in support of the rezoning application. Located in the City of Charlottesville, the site is currently vacant, and the land uses adjacent to the site are residential. The site is bounded by Stribling Avenue to the north, Sunset Avenue to the south, Morgan Court and the Huntley Development to the east, and the Albemarle County border to the west as shown in Figure 1 at the end of the report text. The project consists of a single phase. The proposed land use includes: 170 residential units comprised of 74 townhomes and 96 apartments. Access to the site will be provided via Stribling Avenue and Morgan Court. Included within this study are analyses of existing conditions, future no build conditions, and future build conditions for the years 2024 and 2030. The intersections analyzed include: • JPA and Stribling Avenue, • JPA, Sunset Avenue, and Cleveland Avenue, and • Stribling Avenue and the proposed site driveway. Existing Conditions Existing Land Use Located in the City of Charlottesville, the site is currently vacant, and the land uses adjacent to the site are residential. The site is bounded by Stribling Avenue to the north, Sunset Avenue to the south, Morgan Court and the Huntley Development to the east, and the Albemarle County border to the west. Existing Transportation Network Table 1 contains a description of the specific study area roadway characteristics. The portion of JPA considered in this study travels north/south and connects the Frys Spring neighborhood with the University of Virginia Grounds, access to Downtown Charlottesville, and access to I-64 via Fontaine Avenue to the north and 5th Street retail destinations to the south via Harris Road. The three other study area roadways provide access to residential land uses within the Frys Spring neighborhood. Table 1 Study Area Roadway Characteristics Functional Posted On-Street Roadway Lanes Median Sidewalks Bike Lanes Classification Speed Parking minor arterial north JPA 30 mph 2 yes both sides both sides both sides of Sunset Avenue inconsistent Stribling Avenue local 25 mph 2 no none none north side both sides Sunset Avenue local 25 mph 2 no west of JP none none Circle near Morgan Court local NP 2 no south only none playground 1 Attachment D Both of the study area intersections shown in Figure 1 are stop-controlled. Below is a summary of the traffic control at each intersection. • JPA and Stribling Avenue is a “T” intersection controlled by a stop sign on the Stribling Avenue approach with single lanes provided on all approaches. A pedestrian crosswalk is marked on the southbound approach of the intersection with bulbouts at each end created using pavement markings. • JPA, Sunset Avenue, and Cleveland Avenue is controlled by stop signs on the Sunset Avenue and Cleveland Avenue approaches. The Cleveland Avenue approach provides separate left and right turn lanes and the southbound JPA approach provides a separate left turn lane. The Sunset Avenue and the northbound JPA approach provide a single lane for all movements. Existing Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were conducted at the study intersections on Tuesday, March 23, 2020 and are contained in Appendix A. This was not a typical weekday as Charlottesville City Schools and the University of Virginia were both closed to students due to COVID 19 precautions. However, it should be noted that the counts were conducted prior to the Governor’s Stay at Home Order. To address this unprecedented situation, the intersection traffic counts were doubled to ensure that traffic volumes were not underestimated at the study area intersections. This methodology was agreed upon by the City Traffic Engineer. It should be noted that doubling the traffic volumes, specifically on the side streets, likely results in a conservative estimate of typical traffic conditions. The resulting intersection traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. In addition to intersection traffic counts, 48-hour traffic bi-directional counts were conducted on JPA just north of Cleveland Avenue. Based on these counts, approximately 5,850 vehicles per day (vpd) travel on this section of JPA. The most recent VDOT traffic counts in the same area are from 2018 and indicate that 10,000 vpd travel on this section of JPA. Comparison of the counts conducted for this study to VDOT’s 2018 traffic counts indicates the volumes counted are 58% of the VDOT count, or 42% less than expected. Based on this information, doubling the existing traffic counts on JPA provides a conservative, yet reasonable estimate of typical traffic conditions. Not only were the JPA traffic volumes doubled, the side street traffic volumes on Stribling Avenue, Sunset Avenue, and Cleveland Avenue were also doubled. This increase is even more conservative. A rough estimate of the trip generation that would be expected for the area served by Stribling Avenue and Sunset Avenue, based on a rooftop/door count of approximately 242 residential units, and ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition results in approximately 237 afternoon peak hour trips. Based on the peak hour traffic counts 140 vehicles per hour enter and exit Stribling Avenue and Sunset Avenue in the afternoon peak period. Comparing the counts to the trip generation the number of trips is 59% of what would typically be expected. Therefore, doubling the traffic counts for the side streets overestimates the amount of traffic in the study area creating a very conservative estimate of traffic conditions. 2 Attachment D On Stribling Avenue, in the vicinity of the site driveway, 48-hour traffic counts were conducted and approximately 300 vpd travel on this section of Stribling Avenue. As noted above, both of these counts are low due to the modified traffic patterns related to the COVID 19 precautions and were also doubled for analysis purposes. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Operations The study intersections were analyzed in Synchro/SimTraffic (version 11) in accordance with the procedures stated in the 2000 and 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, and then simulated in SimTraffic 11 to identify the existing levels of service, delay by movement, and queuing. The analysis results from the Synchro/SimTraffic reports are compiled in Table 2 and Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, all individual movements operate at LOS C or better during the morning peak period at both study area intersections. During the afternoon peak period the side streets at both intersections currently operate at LOS E (Stribling Avenue and Sunset Avenue) or LOS F (Cleveland Avenue). Currently the queues at the study area intersections are fewer than four vehicles on any movement during the morning peak period and fewer than seven vehicles during the afternoon peak period. (For traffic analysis purposes vehicles are assumed to be 25 feet long.) Table 2 Existing Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 1. JPA/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 15.2 62 E 41.4 132 JPA NB L/T A 0.2 68 A 0.5 153 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 27 A 0.0 129 2. JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue Sunset Avenue EB L/T/R C 19.3 53 E 36.0 79 Cleveland WB L/T C 22.3 81 F 93.6 164 Avenue WBR B 13.0 66 B 11.2 61 JPA NB L/T/R A 0.1 65 A 0.7 124 SBL A 8.7 44 A 8.5 56 JPA SB T/R A 0.0 20 A 0.0 76 3 Attachment D Future 2024 and 2030 No Build Conditions Future Land Use Knowing that the City of Charlottesville is largely built out, minimal growth is expected in the City portion of the study area. Given the location of the project, adjacent to the Albemarle County border, Albemarle County growth also impacts the study area. Based on information from Albemarle County staff, the only project near the study that could affect traffic patterns is the Granger Property. Located southwest of the site, on the south side of Moore’s Creek, this project will likely consist of 340 residential units. While this project is significant in the area, the timeline is unknown and not likely within the study time frame of this project. Therefore, the Granger Property was not included in this study. While no specific development projects were identified to include in this study, background traffic growth is expected. This growth is accounted for with a background growth rate of 0.2% per year, per discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. Future Transportation Network There are currently no committed projects within the City limits on, or adjacent to, the study area roadways that would affect the study area in 2024 or 2030. However, the 2019 Albemarle County Approved Transportation Priorities Report includes the Sunset/Fontaine Connector Project. This project, ranked 11th and within the County’s 1st Tier of transportation projects, includes a new roadway that connects to Sunset Avenue near Yellowstone Drive and travels through the Fontaine Research Park property to connect with Fontaine Avenue. Based on the project’s rank, the Sunset/Fontaine Connector is clearly a priority for Albemarle County, however, no funding has been identified at this time. A portion of this roadway is required for the Granger Property to develop. Given that the roadway project is not funded it is assumed that this roadway is not part of the transportation network for purposes of this study. Once this roadway is constructed, it will likely serve to reduce the amount of traffic on the study area roadways, thus, excluding this project from the analysis provides a conservative estimate of future traffic conditions. The relevant pages of the report are included in Appendix C. Future 2024 and 2030 No Build Traffic Volumes The future 2024 and 2030 traffic volumes resulting from the background growth are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. Future 2024 and 2030 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Operations The study intersections were analyzed in Synchro/SimTraffic to identify the future no build levels of service, delay by movement, and queuing and are shown in Tables 3 and 4. (See Appendices D and E for the analysis printouts.) As shown in Tables 3 and 4, nearly identical to existing conditions, all individual movements are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the morning peak period at both study intersections. During the afternoon peak period, the side street approaches to JPA at both intersections are expected to operate at LOS E (Stribling Avenue and Sunset Avenue) or LOS F (Cleveland Avenue) with negligible changes in movement delays. 4 Attachment D In both 2024 and 2030, the longest queue expected at either study area intersection on any individual movement during the morning peak period is approximately four vehicles. During the afternoon peak period, the longest queue expected at either study area intersection on any individual movement is less than eight vehicles. Table 3 2024 No Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 1. JPA/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 15.3 67 E 39.7 145 JPA NB L/T A 0.2 76 A 0.5 158 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 34 A 0.0 97 2. JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue Sunset Avenue EB L/T/R C 18.0 49 E 36.8 90 Cleveland WB L/T C 20.6 99 F 95.4 135 Avenue WBR B 12.6 61 B 11.2 64 JPA NB L/T/R A 0.1 60 A 0.7 157 SBL A 8.6 37 A 8.5 60 JPA SB T/R A 0.0 21 A 0.0 77 Table 4 2030 No Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 1. JPA/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 15.5 63 E 40.7 163 JPA NB L/T A 0.2 80 A 0.5 182 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 33 A 0.0 115 2. JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue Sunset Avenue EB L/T/R C 18.2 49 E 38.0 99 Cleveland WB L/T C 20.9 103 F 102.8 153 Avenue WBR B 12.6 61 B 11.3 61 JPA NB L/T/R A 0.1 60 A 0.7 135 SBL A 8.6 36 A 8.5 55 JPA SB T/R A 0.0 16 A 0.0 100 5 Attachment D Future 2024 and 2030 Build Conditions The proposed land use for the Stribling Avenue project includes 170 residential units: 74 townhomes and 96 apartments. Access to the site will be provided via Stribling Avenue and Morgan Court. The assumed future land use and transportation network surrounding the site are the same for the build conditions and no build conditions analyses. Site Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition was used to calculate the future site trips. No pass-by trips or internal capture were assumed. Table 5 provides a summary of the trip generation for the development. Approximately 1,244 new daily trips, 79 morning peak period trips, and 95 afternoon peak period trips are estimated for the development. Note that no trip reductions were taken for walking or biking. Table 5 Site Trip Generation AM PM Land Use LU unit qty daily in out total in out total apartments & townhomes 220 du 170 1244 18 61 79 60 35 95 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment The proposed site traffic assignment and distribution were developed based on an understanding of local traffic patterns and discussions with City staff. Beyond the 80% of trips assumed to use Stribling Avenue and 20% assumed to use Morgan Court, the following traffic distribution is assumed and shown in Figure 5. • 67% to/from the north via JPA, • 17% to/from the east via Cleveland Avenue, • 16% to/from the south via JPA. Figure 6 illustrates the resulting traffic assignment through the study area. Future Build 2024 and 2030 Traffic Volumes The trips generated by the proposed development, calculated and assigned to the study intersections as documented above, were added to the no build traffic volumes and are shown in Figures 7 and 8 for years 2024 and 2030, respectively. Future Build 2024 and 2030 Traffic Operations The study intersections were analyzed in Synchro/SimTraffic to identify the future build levels of service, delay by movement, and queuing. The results of the analysis with the site traffic are shown in Tables 6 and 7. (See Appendices F and G for the analysis printouts.) In both 2024 and 2030, all movements are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the morning peak period at all of the study area intersections. During the afternoon peak period the side streets to JPA will continue to operate at LOS E and F. Specifically, the Stribling Avenue approach will degrade to LOS F during the afternoon peak period in both 2024 and 2030. 6 Attachment D Comparing the respective year build and no build conditions, specific changes in the afternoon peak period delay and level of service worth noting include: • Stribling Avenue: The delay is expected to increase by 23.5 seconds in 2024 and 26.7 seconds in 2030 and the level of service will degrade from E to F for both years as previously noted. • Sunset Avenue: The delay is expected to increase by less than 10 seconds in both 2024 and 2030 and the level of service will remain unchanged from LOS E in existing conditions. • Cleveland Avenue: The delay is expected to increase by 22.3 seconds in 2024 and 25.1 seconds in 2030 and the level of service will continue to be LOS F as in existing conditions. In both 2024 and 2030, the queuing analysis indicates that during the morning peak period the queues will remain fewer than four vehicles. During the afternoon peak period the queue on Stribling Avenue is expected to increase to fewer than 14 vehicles. The longest queue at the JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue intersection is expected to occur on the Cleveland Avenue approach and be approximately eight vehicles during the afternoon peak period. Comparing the respective year build and no build conditions, specific changes in the afternoon peak period queues worth noting include: • Stribling Avenue: The queue is expected to increase by 166 feet in 2024 and 173 feet in 2030, both are approximately seven vehicles. • Sunset Avenue: The queue is expected to increase by less than one vehicle in both 2024 and 2030. • Cleveland Avenue: The queue is expected to increase by 71 feet in 2024 and 41 feet in 2030, fewer than three and two vehicles, respectively. • JPA: The northbound queue at Stribling Avenue is expected to increase by 70 feet in 2024 and 61 feet in 2030, fewer than three vehicles. As shown in Tables 6 and 7, all movements at the site driveway are expected to operate at LOS A during both the morning and afternoon peak periods and the queues are expected to be fewer than three vehicles during both peak periods in 2024 and 2030. 7 Attachment D Table 6 2024 Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 1. JPA/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 17.6 91 F 63.2 311 JPA NB L/T A 0.2 72 A 0.8 228 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 32 A 0.0 112 2. JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue Sunset Avenue EB L/T/R C 19.0 51 E 45.7 108 WB L/T C 21.7 95 F 117.7 206 Cleveland Avenue WBR B 12.6 58 B 11.4 58 JPA NB L/T/R A 0.1 62 A 0.7 155 SBL A 8.6 42 A 8.5 59 JPA SB T/R A 0.0 18 A 0.0 85 3. Site Driveway/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB T/R A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 Stribling Avenue WB L/T A 3.5 6 A 5.3 15 Site Driveway NB L/R A 8.5 65 A 8.5 49 Table 7 2030 Build Conditions Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 1. JPA/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 17.8 92 F 67.4 336 JPA NB L/T A 0.2 72 A 0.8 243 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 32 A 0.0 128 2. JPA/Sunset Avenue/Cleveland Avenue Sunset Ave EB EBL/T/R C 19.3 51 E 47.1 103 WBL/T C 22.1 96 F 127.9 194 Cleveland Ave WB WBR B 12.7 58 B 11.4 61 JPA NB NBL/T/R A 0.1 67 A 0.8 115 SBL A 8.6 41 A 8.5 57 JPA SB SBT/R A 0.0 18 A 0.0 87 3. Site Driveway/Stribling Avenue Stribling Avenue EB T/R A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 Stribling Avenue WB L/T A 3.5 12 A 5.3 16 Site Driveway NB L/R A 8.5 60 A 8.5 48 8 Attachment D Potential Mitigation Improvements The most significant impact of the project is at the JPA/Stribling Avenue intersection during the afternoon peak period. The site adds 49 trips to the eastbound Stribling Avenue approach (37 left turns and 12 right turns) which increases the delay and queues notably. The addition of an eastbound left turn lane would likely alleviate the added delay and queues; however, this is not a feasible improvement based on the limited roadway width, existing residences, and above ground utilities. Given that an eastbound left turn lane is not feasible, other improvements were considered including a northbound left turn lane at the intersection of JPA/Stribling Avenue. Currently there is a median (approximately 18 feet wide) on the northbound approach of the intersection. To address the queue on this approach and potentially improve the intersection capacity, the intersection was analyzed in Synchro/SimTraffic with a 100 foot northbound left turn lane. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8. (See Appendices H and I for the analysis printouts.) As shown in Table 8, with the addition of a northbound left turn lane on JPA at the intersection of JPA/Stribling Avenue the levels of service and delay for the individual movements are unchanged and the northbound left turn movement is expected to operate at LOS A during the morning peak period and LOS B during the afternoon peak period in both 2024 and 2030. The addition of a northbound left turn lane on JPA at Stribling Avenue is expected to have a notable impact on the queues at the intersection during the afternoon peak period. The eastbound Stribling Avenue left turn queue is expected to be reduced by 122 feet (nearly five vehicles) in 2024 and 97 feet (approximately four vehicles) in 2030. The northbound JPA queue is expected to be reduced by 168 feet in 2024 and 183 feet in 2030. Compared to the respective no build conditions, with the addition of the northbound left turn lane, the eastbound Stribling Avenue queue is only expected to increase by fewer than two vehicles (44 feet) in 2024 and approximately three vehicles (76 feet) in 2030 during the afternoon peak period. Table 8 JPA/Stribling Avenue Build Conditions with Mitigation Levels of Service, Delay, and Queues AM PM Approach Movement LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue 2024 Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 17.5 90 F 61.7 189 NB L A 7.8 30 B 10.1 50 JPA NB T A 0.0 32 A 0.0 60 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 27 A 0.0 115 2030 Stribling Avenue EB L/R C 17.8 96 F 64.8 239 NB L A 7.8 33 B 10.1 51 JPA NB T A 0.0 48 A 0.0 60 JPA SB R/T A 0.0 32 A 0.0 100 9 Attachment D Conclusions and Recommendations The traffic associated with the Stribling Avenue project will have a minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network. During the morning peak period the levels of service and queues will be nearly identical to existing conditions with the addition of the site traffic in both 2024 and 2030. The most significant impact noted in the preceding analyses is on Stribling Avenue at the intersection with JPA. At this location the levels of service are expected to degrade and the queues are expected to lengthen during the afternoon peak period. The addition of an eastbound left turn lane on Stribling Avenue at JPA is not feasible based on the limited roadway width, existing residences, and above ground utilities. A northbound left turn lane on JPA at the intersection of JPA/Stribling was considered to address the additional queue on JPA and improve the intersection operations. The results of this analysis indicate that while the levels of service and delay are unchanged by this improvement, it could have a notable impact on the queues during the afternoon peak period. Compared to the respective no build conditions, the queue on the eastbound Stribling Avenue approach to JPA is only expected to increase by 44 feet (fewer than two vehicles) in 2024 and 76 feet (approximately three vehicles) in 2030. It should be noted that the analyses are based on a conservative estimate of the traffic volumes and as a result it is likely that this impact is overstated. 10 Attachment D Figure 1 Site Location and Study Intersections N 1 2 11 Attachment D Figure 2 Adjusted 2020 Traffic Volumes N 172(602) 74(62) 210(724) 52(96) 10(20) 10(18) 26(64) 20(56) Cleveland Ave 1 Sunset Ave 2 Stribling Ave 48(64) 8(12) 10(20) 486(378) 6(32) 432(326) 36(68) 10(8) 16(26) 6(16) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave 1 2 XX(XX) AM(PM) 12 Attachment D Figure 3 2024 No Build Traffic Volumes N 173(607) 75(62) 212(730) 52(97) 10(20) 10(18) 26(65) 20(56) Cleveland Ave 1 Sunset Ave 2 Stribling Ave 48(65) 8(12) 6(32) 435(329) 36(69) 10(20) 490(381) 10(8) 16(26) 6(16) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave 1 2 XX(XX) AM(PM) 13 Attachment D Figure 4 2030 No Build Traffic Volumes N 175(614) 75(63) 214(739) 53(98) 10(20) 10(18) 27(65) 20(57) Cleveland Ave 1 Sunset Ave 2 Stribling Ave 49(65) 8(12) 6(33) 441(333) 37(69) 10(20) 496(386) 10(8) 16(27) 6(16) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave 1 2 XX(XX) AM(PM) 14 Attachment D Figure 5 Site Trip Distribution N 10% 7% 0% 10% 10% 60% 0% 7% 7% 80% Cleveland Ave 1 2 Stribling Ave 3 Stribling Ave Sunset Ave 7% 0% 80% 60% 20% 7% 0% 0% 6% 10% 0% 7% 20% 6% Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave Site Entrance 1 3 2 XX IN XX OUT AM and PM share same distribution percentage. 15 Attachment D Figure 6 Site Trip Assignment N 2(6) 1(4) 11(36) 0(0) 6(4) 6(3) 1(4) 1(4) 0(0) 15(48) Cleveland Ave 1 2 Stribling Ave 3 Stribling Ave Sunset Ave 4(3) 0(0) 49(28) 37(21) 4(12) 4(3) 1(4) 2(6) 0(0) 0(0) 4(3) 0(0) 12(7) 4(1) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave Site Entrance 1 3 2 XX(XX) IN XX(XX) OUT XX(XX) AM(PM) 16 Attachment D Figure 7 2024 Build Traffic Volumes N 77(68) 179(611) 213(734) 58(100) 37(101) 11(24) 11(22) 20(56) 16(18) 15(48) Cleveland Ave 1 2 Stribling Ave 3 Stribling Ave Sunset Ave 12(15) 8(14) 49(28) 85(86) 14(32) 494(384) 0(0) 7(36) 437(335) 36(69) 14(11) 0(0) 28(33) 10(17) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave Site Entrance 1 3 2 XX(XX) AM(PM) 17 Attachment D Figure 8 2030 Build Traffic Volumes N 181(618) 77(69) 215(743) 59(101) 38(101) 11(24) 11(22) 20(57) 16(18) 15(48) Cleveland Ave 1 2 Stribling Ave 3 Stribling Ave Sunset Ave 12(15) 8(14) 49(28) 86(86) 14(32) 500(389) 0(0) 7(37) 443(339) 37(69) 14(11) 0(0) 28(34) 10(17) Jefferson Park Ave Jefferson Park Ave Site Entrance 1 3 2 XX(XX) AM(PM) 18 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX A Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Stribling Site Code : 00007693 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks JPA Robertson JPA Stribling From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 13 1 1 18 3 0 0 4 7 0 40 1 0 41 2 0 2 2 6 72 07:15 AM 0 10 1 1 12 3 0 0 3 6 0 43 1 0 44 0 0 6 1 7 69 07:30 AM 2 25 1 2 30 4 0 1 2 7 0 68 1 0 69 1 0 5 1 7 113 07:45 AM 4 24 0 2 30 2 0 0 0 2 2 65 2 0 69 4 0 7 0 11 112 Total 9 72 3 6 90 12 0 1 9 22 2 216 5 0 223 7 0 20 4 31 366 08:00 AM 2 29 3 3 37 3 0 0 3 6 0 63 1 0 64 1 0 4 1 6 113 08:15 AM 5 27 1 0 33 2 0 0 0 2 0 47 1 0 48 2 0 8 1 11 94 08:30 AM 1 28 1 2 32 4 0 0 2 6 0 53 0 0 53 0 0 6 0 6 97 08:45 AM 2 25 0 3 30 2 0 1 2 5 0 51 2 0 53 1 0 8 1 10 98 Total 10 109 5 8 132 11 0 1 7 19 0 214 4 0 218 4 0 26 3 33 402 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 9 75 3 7 94 3 0 1 6 10 0 43 3 0 46 7 0 6 2 15 165 04:15 PM 7 70 6 5 88 7 0 0 4 11 1 45 4 0 50 2 0 5 1 8 157 04:30 PM 6 89 2 2 99 4 0 1 6 11 1 51 3 0 55 2 0 7 4 13 178 04:45 PM 8 81 4 0 93 3 0 1 1 5 0 43 2 1 46 1 0 6 6 13 157 Total 30 315 15 14 374 17 0 3 17 37 2 182 12 1 197 12 0 24 13 49 657 05:00 PM 12 98 2 4 116 3 0 0 6 9 0 44 4 0 48 3 0 10 2 15 188 05:15 PM 6 94 7 9 116 1 0 1 11 13 0 51 1 0 52 7 0 9 4 20 201 05:30 PM 4 80 8 4 96 1 0 2 7 10 0 36 5 0 41 4 0 5 1 10 157 05:45 PM 10 80 7 12 109 6 0 1 5 12 1 35 3 0 39 4 0 4 4 12 172 Total 32 352 24 29 437 11 0 4 29 44 1 166 13 0 180 18 0 28 11 57 718 Grand Total 81 848 47 57 1033 51 0 9 62 122 5 778 34 1 818 41 0 98 31 170 2143 Apprch % 7.8 82.1 4.5 5.5 41.8 0 7.4 50.8 0.6 95.1 4.2 0.1 24.1 0 57.6 18.2 Total % 3.8 39.6 2.2 2.7 48.2 2.4 0 0.4 2.9 5.7 0.2 36.3 1.6 0 38.2 1.9 0 4.6 1.4 7.9 Passenger Veh 81 835 47 57 1020 51 0 8 62 121 5 751 34 1 791 41 0 97 31 169 2101 % Passenger Veh 100 98.5 100 100 98.7 100 0 88.9 100 99.2 100 96.5 100 100 96.7 100 0 99 100 99.4 98 Trucks 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 1 0 27 0 0 27 0 0 1 0 1 42 % Trucks 0 1.5 0 0 1.3 0 0 11.1 0 0.8 0 3.5 0 0 3.3 0 0 1 0 0.6 2 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Stribling Site Code : 00007693 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :2 JPA Robertson JPA Stribling From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 2 25 1 2 30 4 0 1 2 7 0 68 1 0 69 1 0 5 1 7 113 07:45 AM 4 24 0 2 30 2 0 0 0 2 2 65 2 0 69 4 0 7 0 11 112 08:00 AM 2 29 3 3 37 3 0 0 3 6 0 63 1 0 64 1 0 4 1 6 113 08:15 AM 5 27 1 0 33 2 0 0 0 2 0 47 1 0 48 2 0 8 1 11 94 Total Volume 13 105 5 7 130 11 0 1 5 17 2 243 5 0 250 8 0 24 3 35 432 % App. Total 10 80.8 3.8 5.4 64.7 0 5.9 29.4 0.8 97.2 2 0 22.9 0 68.6 8.6 PHF .650 .905 .417 .583 .878 .688 .000 .250 .417 .607 .250 .893 .625 .000 .906 .500 .000 .750 .750 .795 .956 Passenger Veh 13 104 5 7 129 11 0 1 5 17 2 239 5 0 246 8 0 24 3 35 427 % Passenger Veh 100 99.0 100 100 99.2 100 0 100 100 100 100 98.4 100 0 98.4 100 0 100 100 100 98.8 Trucks 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 % Trucks 0 1.0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Stribling Site Code : 00007693 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :3 JPA Out In Total 274 129 403 4 1 5 278 130 408 13 104 5 7 0 1 0 0 13 105 5 7 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data 0 0 53 53 24 24 Right Thru Total Left Out 11 11 0 7 0 7 North 0 0 0 Peds Right Thru Robertson 0 35 35 Stribling Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In 0 0 0 In 17 17 8 0 8 Left Peds 0 Passenger Veh Trucks 1 0 1 0 18 18 Out Total 3 0 3 24 24 0 5 0 5 Left Thru Right Peds 5 239 2 0 0 4 0 0 5 243 2 0 113 246 359 1 4 5 114 250 364 Out In Total JPA Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Stribling Site Code : 00007693 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :4 JPA Robertson JPA Stribling From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 6 89 2 2 99 4 0 1 6 11 1 51 3 0 55 2 0 7 4 13 178 04:45 PM 8 81 4 0 93 3 0 1 1 5 0 43 2 1 46 1 0 6 6 13 157 05:00 PM 12 98 2 4 116 3 0 0 6 9 0 44 4 0 48 3 0 10 2 15 188 05:15 PM 6 94 7 9 116 1 0 1 11 13 0 51 1 0 52 7 0 9 4 20 201 Total Volume 32 362 15 15 424 11 0 3 24 38 1 189 10 1 201 13 0 32 16 61 724 % App. Total 7.5 85.4 3.5 3.5 28.9 0 7.9 63.2 0.5 94 5 0.5 21.3 0 52.5 26.2 PHF .667 .923 .536 .417 .914 .688 .000 .750 .545 .731 .250 .926 .625 .250 .914 .464 .000 .800 .667 .763 .900 Passenger Veh 32 360 15 15 422 11 0 2 24 37 1 180 10 1 192 13 0 32 16 61 712 % Passenger Veh 100 99.4 100 100 99.5 100 0 66.7 100 97.4 100 95.2 100 100 95.5 100 0 100 100 100 98.3 Trucks 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 12 % Trucks 0 0.6 0 0 0.5 0 0 33.3 0 2.6 0 4.8 0 0 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Stribling Site Code : 00007693 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :5 JPA Out In Total 223 422 645 9 2 11 232 424 656 32 360 15 15 0 2 0 0 32 362 15 15 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data 0 0 32 32 103 103 Right Thru Total Left Out 11 11 0 16 16 0 North 0 0 0 Peds Right Thru Robertson 0 61 61 Stribling Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM In 0 0 0 In 38 37 0 13 13 Left Peds 1 Passenger Veh Trucks 3 1 2 0 42 42 Out Total 0 16 16 54 53 24 24 1 0 Left Thru Right Peds 10 180 1 1 0 9 0 0 10 189 1 1 375 192 567 3 9 12 378 201 579 Out In Total JPA Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Sunset Site Code : 00005239 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks JPA Cleveland JPA Sunset From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 13 2 0 16 6 1 2 3 12 2 37 0 0 39 1 1 1 0 3 70 07:15 AM 0 9 2 0 11 5 1 1 0 7 5 39 0 0 44 1 2 1 0 4 66 07:30 AM 0 24 5 1 30 9 0 5 5 19 4 65 3 0 72 0 2 1 0 3 124 07:45 AM 1 20 6 0 27 8 3 1 1 13 7 62 0 0 69 1 0 0 0 1 110 Total 2 66 15 1 84 28 5 9 9 51 18 203 3 0 224 3 5 3 0 11 370 08:00 AM 2 23 8 0 33 11 1 3 3 18 2 51 0 0 53 1 1 1 0 3 107 08:15 AM 2 19 7 0 28 9 1 1 0 11 5 38 0 0 43 1 2 2 0 5 87 08:30 AM 1 22 4 1 28 7 0 5 5 17 4 40 3 0 47 0 2 1 0 3 95 08:45 AM 1 15 7 0 23 13 3 2 1 19 7 42 0 0 49 2 0 0 0 2 93 Total 6 79 26 1 112 40 5 11 9 65 18 171 3 0 192 4 5 4 0 13 382 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 1 70 6 0 77 5 2 8 6 21 12 42 4 1 59 2 1 1 0 4 161 04:15 PM 1 63 5 1 70 5 2 8 4 19 7 46 6 2 61 3 1 0 3 7 157 04:30 PM 3 80 6 0 89 7 4 6 7 24 6 48 3 4 61 1 2 2 0 5 179 04:45 PM 3 69 10 2 84 5 2 5 5 17 8 39 3 1 51 2 0 2 5 9 161 Total 8 282 27 3 320 22 10 27 22 81 33 175 16 8 232 8 4 5 8 25 658 05:00 PM 2 79 14 0 95 10 2 9 6 27 13 34 4 1 52 2 1 1 0 4 178 05:15 PM 1 73 18 1 93 9 2 8 4 23 7 42 6 2 57 3 1 1 3 8 181 05:30 PM 8 78 9 0 95 11 4 6 7 28 6 29 3 4 42 1 2 3 0 6 171 05:45 PM 1 52 15 2 70 8 2 6 5 21 8 31 3 1 43 2 0 2 5 9 143 Total 12 282 56 3 353 38 10 29 22 99 34 136 16 8 194 8 4 7 8 27 673 Grand Total 28 709 124 8 869 128 30 76 62 296 103 685 38 16 842 23 18 19 16 76 2083 Apprch % 3.2 81.6 14.3 0.9 43.2 10.1 25.7 20.9 12.2 81.4 4.5 1.9 30.3 23.7 25 21.1 Total % 1.3 34 6 0.4 41.7 6.1 1.4 3.6 3 14.2 4.9 32.9 1.8 0.8 40.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 3.6 Passenger Veh 25 703 123 8 859 123 30 68 62 283 94 671 36 16 817 22 18 18 16 74 2033 % Passenger Veh 89.3 99.2 99.2 100 98.8 96.1 100 89.5 100 95.6 91.3 98 94.7 100 97 95.7 100 94.7 100 97.4 97.6 Trucks 3 6 1 0 10 5 0 8 0 13 9 14 2 0 25 1 0 1 0 2 50 % Trucks 10.7 0.8 0.8 0 1.2 3.9 0 10.5 0 4.4 8.7 2 5.3 0 3 4.3 0 5.3 0 2.6 2.4 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Sunset Site Code : 00005239 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :2 JPA Cleveland JPA Sunset From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0 24 5 1 30 9 0 5 5 19 4 65 3 0 72 0 2 1 0 3 124 07:45 AM 1 20 6 0 27 8 3 1 1 13 7 62 0 0 69 1 0 0 0 1 110 08:00 AM 2 23 8 0 33 11 1 3 3 18 2 51 0 0 53 1 1 1 0 3 107 08:15 AM 2 19 7 0 28 9 1 1 0 11 5 38 0 0 43 1 2 2 0 5 87 Total Volume 5 86 26 1 118 37 5 10 9 61 18 216 3 0 237 3 5 4 0 12 428 % App. Total 4.2 72.9 22 0.8 60.7 8.2 16.4 14.8 7.6 91.1 1.3 0 25 41.7 33.3 0 PHF .625 .896 .813 .250 .894 .841 .417 .500 .450 .803 .643 .831 .250 .000 .823 .750 .625 .500 .000 .600 .863 Passenger Veh 5 85 26 1 117 35 5 8 9 57 16 213 2 0 231 3 5 4 0 12 417 % Passenger Veh 100 98.8 100 100 99.2 94.6 100 80.0 100 93.4 88.9 98.6 66.7 0 97.5 100 100 100 0 100 97.4 Trucks 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 4 2 3 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 11 % Trucks 0 1.2 0 0 0.8 5.4 0 20.0 0 6.6 11.1 1.4 33.3 0 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Sunset Site Code : 00005239 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :3 JPA Out In Total 252 117 369 5 1 6 257 118 375 5 85 26 1 0 1 0 0 5 86 26 1 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data 1 4 0 4 24 25 Right Thru Total Left Out 37 35 2 49 47 2 North 5 0 5 Peds Right Thru Cleveland 0 12 12 Sunset Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In 5 0 5 In 61 57 3 0 3 Left Peds 4 Passenger Veh 10 Trucks 2 8 1 12 13 Out Total 0 0 0 110 104 6 9 0 9 Left Thru Right Peds 2 213 16 0 1 3 2 0 3 216 18 0 96 231 327 3 6 9 99 237 336 Out In Total JPA Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Sunset Site Code : 00005239 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :4 JPA Cleveland JPA Sunset From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 3 80 6 0 89 7 4 6 7 24 6 48 3 4 61 1 2 2 0 5 179 04:45 PM 3 69 10 2 84 5 2 5 5 17 8 39 3 1 51 2 0 2 5 9 161 05:00 PM 2 79 14 0 95 10 2 9 6 27 13 34 4 1 52 2 1 1 0 4 178 05:15 PM 1 73 18 1 93 9 2 8 4 23 7 42 6 2 57 3 1 1 3 8 181 Total Volume 9 301 48 3 361 31 10 28 22 91 34 163 16 8 221 8 4 6 8 26 699 % App. Total 2.5 83.4 13.3 0.8 34.1 11 30.8 24.2 15.4 73.8 7.2 3.6 30.8 15.4 23.1 30.8 PHF .750 .941 .667 .375 .950 .775 .625 .778 .786 .843 .654 .849 .667 .500 .906 .667 .500 .750 .400 .722 .965 Passenger Veh 8 300 48 3 359 30 10 26 22 88 31 159 16 8 214 8 4 5 8 25 686 % Passenger Veh 88.9 99.7 100 100 99.4 96.8 100 92.9 100 96.7 91.2 97.5 100 100 96.8 100 100 83.3 100 96.2 98.1 Trucks 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 3 4 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 1 13 % Trucks 11.1 0.3 0 0 0.6 3.2 0 7.1 0 3.3 8.8 2.5 0 0 3.2 0 0 16.7 0 3.8 1.9 Attachment D Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Sunset Site Code : 00005239 Start Date : 3/25/2020 Page No :5 JPA Out In Total 194 359 553 6 2 8 200 361 561 8 300 48 3 1 1 0 0 9 301 48 3 Right Thru Left Peds Peak Hour Data 2 5 1 6 59 61 Right Thru Total Left Out 31 30 1 86 83 3 North 4 0 4 Peds Right Thru Cleveland 1 25 26 Sunset 10 10 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM In 0 In 91 88 8 0 8 Left Peds 3 Passenger Veh 28 26 Trucks 2 1 34 35 Out Total 8 0 8 177 171 22 22 6 0 Left Thru Right Peds 16 159 31 8 0 4 3 0 16 163 34 8 334 214 548 3 7 10 337 221 558 Out In Total JPA Printed: 03/31/2020 at 09:55 PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18070698) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Tuesday, 03/24/2020 Unit ID: Location: JPA just north of Sunset Northbound Southbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 01:00 - 01:59 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 0 0 0 07:00 - 07:59 0 0 0 08:00 - 08:59 0 0 0 09:00 - 09:59 0 0 0 10:00 - 10:59 0 0 0 11:00 - 11:59 77 41 118 12:00 - 12:59 171 209 380 13:00 - 13:59 180 200 380 14:00 - 14:59 172 226 398 15:00 - 15:59 182 257 439 16:00 - 16:59 214 321 535 17:00 - 17:59 196 367 563 18:00 - 18:59 190 244 434 19:00 - 19:59 137 179 316 20:00 - 20:59 85 119 204 21:00 - 21:59 76 80 156 22:00 - 22:59 42 51 93 23:00 - 23:59 23 49 72 Totals 1745 2343 4088 AM Peak Time 11:00 - 11:59 11:00 - 11:59 11:00 - 11:59 AM Peak Volume 77 41 118 PM Peak Time 15:55 - 16:54 16:38 - 17:37 16:37 - 17:36 PM Peak Volume 220 406 612 JPA Just North of Sunset.tvp Page 1 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 09:55 PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18070698) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Wednesday, 03/25/2020 Unit ID: Location: JPA just north of Sunset Northbound Southbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 18 23 41 01:00 - 01:59 18 22 40 02:00 - 02:59 10 11 21 03:00 - 03:59 10 7 17 04:00 - 04:59 22 13 35 05:00 - 05:59 37 8 45 06:00 - 06:59 151 50 201 07:00 - 07:59 234 84 318 08:00 - 08:59 216 113 329 09:00 - 09:59 133 112 245 10:00 - 10:59 142 118 260 11:00 - 11:59 155 160 315 12:00 - 12:59 174 223 397 13:00 - 13:59 160 181 341 14:00 - 14:59 178 226 404 15:00 - 15:59 186 226 412 16:00 - 16:59 199 318 517 17:00 - 17:59 185 360 545 18:00 - 18:59 188 223 411 19:00 - 19:59 122 169 291 20:00 - 20:59 102 134 236 21:00 - 21:59 70 77 147 22:00 - 22:59 48 47 95 23:00 - 23:59 34 46 80 Totals 2792 2951 5743 AM Peak Time 07:27 - 08:26 11:00 - 11:59 07:33 - 08:32 AM Peak Volume 263 160 378 PM Peak Time 15:27 - 16:26 16:39 - 17:38 16:39 - 17:38 PM Peak Volume 215 386 586 JPA Just North of Sunset.tvp Page 2 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 09:55 PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18070698) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Thursday, 03/26/2020 Unit ID: Location: JPA just north of Sunset Northbound Southbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 15 25 40 01:00 - 01:59 13 17 30 02:00 - 02:59 6 13 19 03:00 - 03:59 9 3 12 04:00 - 04:59 17 5 22 05:00 - 05:59 36 10 46 06:00 - 06:59 156 43 199 07:00 - 07:59 237 112 349 08:00 - 08:59 215 110 325 09:00 - 09:59 157 129 286 10:00 - 10:59 159 141 300 11:00 - 11:59 176 182 358 12:00 - 12:59 191 181 372 13:00 - 13:59 184 183 367 14:00 - 14:59 209 234 443 15:00 - 15:59 204 268 472 16:00 - 16:59 151 222 373 17:00 - 17:59 0 0 0 18:00 - 18:59 - - - 19:00 - 19:59 - - - 20:00 - 20:59 - - - 21:00 - 21:59 - - - 22:00 - 22:59 - - - 23:00 - 23:59 - - - Totals 2135 1878 4013 AM Peak Time 07:28 - 08:27 10:59 - 11:58 07:30 - 08:29 AM Peak Volume 284 186 423 PM Peak Time 15:39 - 16:38 15:36 - 16:35 15:39 - 16:38 PM Peak Volume 226 326 548 JPA Just North of Sunset.tvp Page 3 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 09:55 PicoCount 2500 V2.40 (s/n# 18070698) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Friday, 03/27/2020 Unit ID: Location: JPA just north of Sunset Northbound Southbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 - - - 01:00 - 01:59 - - - 02:00 - 02:59 - - - 03:00 - 03:59 - - - 04:00 - 04:59 - - - 05:00 - 05:59 - - - 06:00 - 06:59 - - - 07:00 - 07:59 - - - 08:00 - 08:59 - - - 09:00 - 09:59 - - - 10:00 - 10:59 - - - 11:00 - 11:59 - - - 12:00 - 12:59 - - - 13:00 - 13:59 - - - 14:00 - 14:59 - - - 15:00 - 15:59 - - - 16:00 - 16:59 - - - 17:00 - 17:59 - - - 18:00 - 18:59 - - - 19:00 - 19:59 - - - 20:00 - 20:59 - - - 21:00 - 21:59 - - - 22:00 - 22:59 - - - 23:00 - 23:59 - - - Totals 0 0 0 AM Peak Time N/A N/A N/A AM Peak Volume 0 0 0 PM Peak Time N/A N/A N/A PM Peak Volume 0 0 0 JPA Just North of Sunset.tvp Page 4 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 10:06 PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16081901) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Tuesday, 03/24/2020 Unit ID: Location: Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley Westbound Eastbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 0 0 0 01:00 - 01:59 0 0 0 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 0 0 0 07:00 - 07:59 0 0 0 08:00 - 08:59 0 0 0 09:00 - 09:59 0 0 0 10:00 - 10:59 0 0 0 11:00 - 11:59 0 0 0 12:00 - 12:59 1 2 3 13:00 - 13:59 6 8 14 14:00 - 14:59 9 6 15 15:00 - 15:59 7 9 16 16:00 - 16:59 6 7 13 17:00 - 17:59 2 5 7 18:00 - 18:59 7 2 9 19:00 - 19:59 4 3 7 20:00 - 20:59 4 0 4 21:00 - 21:59 5 6 11 22:00 - 22:59 2 0 2 23:00 - 23:59 2 1 3 Totals 55 49 104 AM Peak Time N/A N/A N/A AM Peak Volume 0 0 0 PM Peak Time 13:40 - 14:39 15:33 - 16:32 15:25 - 16:24 PM Peak Volume 11 13 20 Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley.tvp Page 1 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 10:06 PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16081901) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Wednesday, 03/25/2020 Unit ID: Location: Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley Westbound Eastbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 3 0 3 01:00 - 01:59 1 2 3 02:00 - 02:59 1 0 1 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 0 0 0 07:00 - 07:59 2 3 5 08:00 - 08:59 0 3 3 09:00 - 09:59 2 2 4 10:00 - 10:59 4 8 12 11:00 - 11:59 4 4 8 12:00 - 12:59 6 3 9 13:00 - 13:59 4 7 11 14:00 - 14:59 5 6 11 15:00 - 15:59 9 3 12 16:00 - 16:59 7 5 12 17:00 - 17:59 4 7 11 18:00 - 18:59 8 5 13 19:00 - 19:59 2 2 4 20:00 - 20:59 7 4 11 21:00 - 21:59 7 1 8 22:00 - 22:59 2 2 4 23:00 - 23:59 1 1 2 Totals 79 68 147 AM Peak Time 09:34 - 10:33 09:59 - 10:58 09:43 - 10:42 AM Peak Volume 6 9 14 PM Peak Time 14:15 - 15:14 12:43 - 13:42 14:15 - 15:14 PM Peak Volume 10 8 16 Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley.tvp Page 2 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 10:06 PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16081901) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Thursday, 03/26/2020 Unit ID: Location: Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley Westbound Eastbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 1 0 1 01:00 - 01:59 1 0 1 02:00 - 02:59 0 0 0 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 04:00 - 04:59 0 0 0 05:00 - 05:59 0 0 0 06:00 - 06:59 1 1 2 07:00 - 07:59 1 1 2 08:00 - 08:59 2 5 7 09:00 - 09:59 4 8 12 10:00 - 10:59 3 2 5 11:00 - 11:59 3 1 4 12:00 - 12:59 10 10 20 13:00 - 13:59 7 8 15 14:00 - 14:59 10 5 15 15:00 - 15:59 7 8 15 16:00 - 16:59 3 6 9 17:00 - 17:59 1 1 2 18:00 - 18:59 - - - 19:00 - 19:59 - - - 20:00 - 20:59 - - - 21:00 - 21:59 - - - 22:00 - 22:59 - - - 23:00 - 23:59 - - - Totals 54 56 110 AM Peak Time 09:48 - 10:47 09:00 - 09:59 09:00 - 09:59 AM Peak Volume 5 8 12 PM Peak Time 12:18 - 13:17 12:00 - 12:59 12:22 - 13:21 PM Peak Volume 14 10 22 Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley.tvp Page 3 Printed: 03/31/2020 at 10:06 PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16081901) TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124 Attachment D Data Collection Group Daily Vehicle Volume Report Study Date: Friday, 03/27/2020 Unit ID: Location: Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley Westbound Eastbound Total Volume Volume Volume 00:00 - 00:59 - - - 01:00 - 01:59 - - - 02:00 - 02:59 - - - 03:00 - 03:59 - - - 04:00 - 04:59 - - - 05:00 - 05:59 - - - 06:00 - 06:59 - - - 07:00 - 07:59 - - - 08:00 - 08:59 - - - 09:00 - 09:59 - - - 10:00 - 10:59 - - - 11:00 - 11:59 - - - 12:00 - 12:59 - - - 13:00 - 13:59 - - - 14:00 - 14:59 - - - 15:00 - 15:59 - - - 16:00 - 16:59 - - - 17:00 - 17:59 - - - 18:00 - 18:59 - - - 19:00 - 19:59 - - - 20:00 - 20:59 - - - 21:00 - 21:59 - - - 22:00 - 22:59 - - - 23:00 - 23:59 - - - Totals 0 0 0 AM Peak Time N/A N/A N/A AM Peak Volume 0 0 0 PM Peak Time N/A N/A N/A PM Peak Volume 0 0 0 Stribling bw Nob Hill and Huntley.tvp Page 4 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX B Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 16 10 486 210 26 Future Vol, veh/h 48 16 10 486 210 26 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 50 17 10 506 219 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 771 243 253 0 - 0 Stage 1 240 - - - - - Stage 2 531 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 371 801 1324 - - - Stage 1 805 - - - - - Stage 2 594 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 362 793 1315 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 362 - - - - - Stage 1 791 - - - - - Stage 2 590 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.2 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1315 - 419 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.159 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 15.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.6 - - 2020 Exisiting AM 3:54 pm 04/03/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 74 6 432 36 52 172 10 Future Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 74 6 432 36 52 172 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 9 12 7 23 12 86 7 502 42 60 200 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 922 885 207 873 870 532 213 0 0 544 0 0 Stage 1 327 327 - 537 537 - - - - - - - Stage 2 595 558 - 336 333 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 253 286 839 252 292 542 1193 - - 1035 - - Stage 1 690 651 - 497 526 - - - - - - - Stage 2 494 515 - 642 647 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 194 267 838 230 273 537 1192 - - 1035 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 194 267 - 230 273 - - - - - - - Stage 1 684 613 - 493 522 - - - - - - - Stage 2 399 511 - 588 609 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.3 15.7 0.1 1.9 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1192 - - 280 243 537 1035 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.1 0.144 0.16 0.058 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 19.3 22.3 13 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 - - 2020 Exisiting AM 3:54 pm 04/03/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 68 27 Average Queue (ft) 28 5 1 95th Queue (ft) 52 31 11 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 81 66 65 44 20 Average Queue (ft) 20 25 37 3 12 1 95th Queue (ft) 46 61 57 28 33 9 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2020 Exisiting AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 64 26 20 378 724 64 Future Vol, veh/h 64 26 20 378 724 64 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 71 29 22 420 804 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1321 857 884 0 - 0 Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 472 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 174 360 774 - - - Stage 1 423 - - - - - Stage 2 632 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 165 354 767 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 165 - - - - - Stage 1 404 - - - - - Stage 2 626 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 41.4 0.5 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 767 - 195 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - 0.513 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 0 41.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A A E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 2.6 - - 2020 Exisiting PM 10:44 am 04/07/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 56 20 62 32 326 68 96 602 18 Future Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 56 20 62 32 326 68 96 602 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 13 8 17 58 21 65 33 340 71 100 627 19 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1338 1330 667 1321 1304 392 654 0 0 419 0 0 Stage 1 845 845 - 450 450 - - - - - - - Stage 2 493 485 - 871 854 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 121 156 462 130 162 655 943 - - 1151 - - Stage 1 337 382 - 579 575 - - - - - - - Stage 2 531 555 - 339 378 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 86 134 449 104 139 645 936 - - 1142 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 86 134 - 104 139 - - - - - - - Stage 1 319 346 - 548 544 - - - - - - - Stage 2 435 525 - 285 342 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 36 56.6 0.7 1.1 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 936 - - 153 111 645 1142 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 - - 0.245 0.713 0.1 0.088 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 0 - 36 93.6 11.2 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.9 3.8 0.3 0.3 - - 2020 Exisiting PM 10:44 am 04/07/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 132 153 129 Average Queue (ft) 51 26 14 95th Queue (ft) 102 90 65 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 79 164 61 124 56 76 Average Queue (ft) 28 48 36 29 18 9 95th Queue (ft) 64 115 63 82 43 41 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 2020 Exisiting PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX C Attachment D FACTOR SCORES PROPOSED 2018 PROJECT NAME PROJECT TYPE/ DESCRIPTION NOTES/UPDATES SOURCE OF PROJECT ECONOMIC 2019 RANK RANK LAND USE SAFETY CONGESTION ACCESSIBILITY TOTAL DEVELOPMENT Pedestrian Improvements Implements a study evaluating State Farm at-grade pedestrian Pantops MP on US 250 East - between potential crosswalk locations, including crossing complete. Improved Free Bridge and State Farm off-grade options, for US 250 in pedestrian underpass at Free Bridge Blvd Pantops at the Pantops Center and the is under-construction through NIFI. 9 4 Rivanna Ridge Center to identify the Pantops Master Plan recommends a 5 5 3 5 5 23 best location(s) and develop study to evaluate pedestrian conceptual design and cost estimates crossing of US 250 at the Pantops for those potential crossings. Center and Rivanna Ridge Center. Avon St. Improvements - Curb and gutter, bicycle and Sidewalks under construction on Southern & Western Areas From City Limits to Rt 20 pedestrian, and vehicular operational east side between Swan Lake Dr and MP; CA-MPO 2040 LRTP improvements throughout corridor. Cale ES and on west side between Stoney Creek Dr and Arden Dr. Crosswalk at Cale ES funded in 2018. 10 25 5 4 5 3 5 22 NIFI Planning study underway to identify, prioritize, and develop concepts for specific improvements. Recommendations will be reprioritized once study is complete. Sunset/Fontaine Connector Construct a new road from Project should include a Shared-Use Southern & Western Area Road approximately Yellowstone Dr through Path adjacent to Moore's Creek and MP; Southern Urban Area B 11 N/A 3 3 5 5 6 22 the Fontaine Research Park property to requires an improved underpass at Report; C-A MPO 2040 LRTP connect with Fontaine Ave. the RR crossing. Tabor/High/ Hilltop Streets Construction of sidewalks or pedestrian Funding identified through the Crozet MP Pedestrian Improvements - paths and associated crosswalks Quality of Life Improvements Funds Tabor St from Crozet Ave to and conceptual design and cost 12 26 6 3 4 5 4 22 High St, High St from Library estimates underway. Ave to Park Rd, Hilltop St from High St to Indigo Rd Hillsdale Dr Extension and Rebuild and realign Hillsdale to connect Recommended in the Rio/29 Small Rio 29 SAP Realignment Phase 2 - From from JABA to private road at back of Area Plan Beyond 2024 13 N/A JABA to Mall Dr Fashion Square Mall, rebuild Fashion 4 5 5 4 4 22 Square Mall private road as public road standards to Mall Dr Rio Road/John Warner Intersection Improvements at the Rio Private Development TIA and Parkway Intersection Rd/John Warner Parkway/CATEC VDOT recommendation 14 N/A 4 5 6 2 4 21 Improvements Entrance to address capacity and safety issues Rt 20/Rt 53 Intersection Recommended to reconstruct Requested CIP funding not Southern & Western Area improvements - intersection into a roundabout with approved, Intersection MP; CA-MPO 2040 LRTP 15 8 additional Bike/Ped improvements improvements (Rt 20/Rt 53) 4 6 5 3 3 21 (roundabout) submitted for Smart Scale funding in 2018 not funded US 250 West/US 29 Bypass Implement recommendations from the US 250 West Corridor STARS 16 N/A 2 5 5 4 5 21 Interchange US 250 West STARS Study Study Belvedere/Rio Road Intersection Improvements at the VDOT currently evaluating options Private Development TIA and Intersection Improvements Belvedere Blvd/Rio Rd/Church for improvement VDOT recommendation 17 N/A 5 4 4 3 4 20 Entrance to address capacity and safety issues 4 TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY Albemarle County ! Bike-Pedestrian 5 Development Area 5 Rural Area Community Development PROJECTS 2019 ! Road !5 Intersection Parks/Schools 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Miles Future Transit Corridors ¹ e ng re G ra en e O 74 ! ( Preddy 29 Creek 0 1 Trail Park AD V A N C E D MI LLS R Crozet - 250 Inset Chris Greene I RD Lake Park RD WH BR L L TE ON S Mint Springs Broadus HA E K Valley Park DR I A RW Wood ES DI C K E R CR OO AV D R NE LA E C H R IS D B S TI L M AN R D O Beaver ULD E R OZ E T Augusta GR EE Creek Park Crozet ES UN R I O F EE N RD J AR T H R EE MA 52 G AP N S RD 28 42 ! ! ! N OTC H' D RD L EW IS RD Shenandoah CL AND National 25 E AR K DR à 240 ! OD AR Park 12 Ë L ! WO 89 ! ( I VY R D 61 ! ( YS VI EN LL E 29 E Murray GR Henley MS ! !8 ES RD T LN R OC K F I S H ET CH RD 21 GAP T P K E IT PR ON N ! ( 76 O OD RS OW Western A ! O N EW T OK E IRP 82 Albemarle HS CK OR T 45 O V ER L EE N W ! ! ( DI RD RD R OC K F I S H GR GAP T P K E X 64 41 RD Y Z I - 6 4 R ES T !5 ! P R OF F I T N RD S TOP- M P 11 3 SO 250 TO 81 20 à BL W OD 1 0 DI C K E R VD N ! Ë R C O 63 E RS NTE RW Y ! 46 BE P K W I ZE R D DI CK TI M OP RD D ! Baker-Butler ES H T CR W O OD S R AN Nelson S 30 TM à 151 Ë RD ! LE OR M S C H OO L IL DICK I HO RD LL V Y W O OD S D I CK LE RD L KE LA M 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3 YS R L EA AR W OO D S D E P L AN K R Miles D RD NY S TO S D 73 H D L AN S R D OU WO POI NT R D BL V D T Sutherland MS H W OO ! OD AS R IV Stony ER Hollymead ES Point ES FO RE R K SE V RD AN AS RI RV N HW IN S L NEY L O IR A O B L OO D VD TR O L E CH IM RD EM R I MI L RD S G AR T H !27 48 ! 58 ! 68 ! PO LO R G R OU N D S DR D !35 Ivy Creek AR Natural Area KM R BE !75 32 ! 50 Agnor-Hurt ES D ! MBS RIO 23 Woodbrook ES E R LA W ! ( RD RD ILL 24 ! ( SV 20 ! 87 ! ( 64 R EN D OW 62 86 ! R RD ! ! DR Meriwether-Lewis ES S EA K B E KM A LD T I LMA N Greer ES 33 IE R SO OO RD OL D ! E N S FOU HF BR BA L L AR D Charlotte Y. DR R RI RT NO O RD Albemarle HS LD I L Humphris E !4 O TR N O L L ON ES O ME EM Jouett MS Park R D E DR RD E 13 56 DE V M O U N TAI N R AL V E BL D L S BA SD ! ! B EL R EE TR S TA F D RR TE R H I LL E HY AC 22 OL KS DR ! IN ON RD D R M GT AU L FA R M I N SE DR IC 47 36 WN EO RGE TO 60 ! RD ! 17 ! ! ( T O N DR G ! (1 W 14 RD Y ! ( KE O P KW J LA G FAR M I N G AR LCO 71 U Murray ES 79 T ER O H N NE A ! 78 I VY R D R 29 ! 49 20 Ã Ë ER (! ( DR 0 1 SH ! ( DR F RD N O NA LD H R D W AR N DU DR FF M 250 54 ! FA U L C B LV Y 7 ! (0 1 0 D B R O O L EY 37 ! RI MA S PE LE Y E 72 CO D O RD AM RD SI R ! D I EL D DN 55 16 ! ! E R 85 E RD ! Attachment D MF DR RY OO Darden U BL 31 DR ! ( RB AM Towe Park TE DN E EL C AN K R DR A D UN S T AN K IV DR ST E N T CITY OF RA MON E DR FO OC G T DEER AV R S I 67 E GG L EG O 84 TY ED RD CHARLOTTESVILLE NC P AT H ! ! ED IT AL D R HA R OL EM M E KI University ! 9 RD SP SE RV N (9 ! (3!( 2 UN DI CK D ! HO R E M O O IR R TA of Virginia 57 S DS IN ! W OO YD !PA O (9 N H T DR FLO R VD BL ! (6 E IC AT U T OP S D HM R RES E S T RM X 64 Y Z R VOI R RD FA ON D R P B R OA TE R KW Y D 11 DW PE AY J 66 ! ! ST E F F E RS O N T SE N 22 à E XT SU X 64 RD Ë UE 59 Y IS A N 40 Z R I C H M ON LOU E ! ! D RD 39 AV RE DF 26 ! ! S W I CK R D E KE 5 IC IE TH LD AV E L L O A 10 NT T 65 ! 38 Stone-Robinson ES RE ! S T ! MO S T I ON S RD !18 ET P OR GE T KW Y RD LE 44 EX CO L M I LTO N W AY E 77 19 51 ! ! ! DR ET GL EN M !! (7 RE N S OUT H R N E 15 ! ( RB Y DA S T AV O RD 43 PKW Y MI L D ARB Y C A B L AC K ! L T RD T D RD DR Monticello HS R D AR H I C K OR Y S 53 Y B EK ! C RE PI P W ER RE LAK AY X 64 YN E Cale ES Y Z OV IA 88 ! ( IN C S TO DR G 29 R E NE Y EK NN 1 0 DR RU ER DE 250 0 1 Biscuit Run Park P IP E WA R 34 Y ! L DU D LEY D Southern Albemarle Inset OL IN R C AR R RD M O U N TA C RE EK MIL TH UN OM LS I ON AS RD Biscuit Run Park RD E PL JE A FF OR ER SO NK ST N P S KW Y IG 53 RD à A S JE F F E R S O N PK W Y CR CA THOMA Ë S Red Hill ES TL 53 à E Ë RD RO CK 69 ! RG ( U RD HB Y NC DL OL Walnut Creek Park Walton MS 1 029 OLD NCH B U R LY G RD 20 Ã Ë 20 Ã Ë 80 ! ( Walnut Nelson Creek Park IS B W A L NUT Walton L A UC Fluvanna CR ND K S E EK L A K E MS R CO D TT SV ILL E RD Yancey ES Simpson Park IR I S H R Scottsville ES à D 6 Ë 83 ! ( Dorrier Park Bu cki 0 1 2 3 ngh Miles Totier Creek Park am Prepared by: Daniel Butch Senior Planner- Transportation Q:\USERS\Transportation\mxd\2019_Priorities_Template_Portrait.mxd Community Development- Planning Division 6/13/2019 The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as legal description. This map is for display purposes only. Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX D Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 16 10 490 212 26 Future Vol, veh/h 48 16 10 490 212 26 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 50 17 10 510 221 27 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 777 245 255 0 - 0 Stage 1 242 - - - - - Stage 2 535 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 368 799 1322 - - - Stage 1 803 - - - - - Stage 2 591 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 359 791 1313 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 359 - - - - - Stage 1 789 - - - - - Stage 2 587 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1313 - 416 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.16 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 15.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.6 - - 2024 No Build AM 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 75 6 435 36 52 173 10 Future Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 75 6 435 36 52 173 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 9 11 7 22 11 82 7 473 39 57 188 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 871 835 195 824 821 502 200 0 0 512 0 0 Stage 1 309 309 - 507 507 - - - - - - - Stage 2 562 526 - 317 314 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 274 306 851 272 312 563 1207 - - 1064 - - Stage 1 705 663 - 516 543 - - - - - - - Stage 2 515 532 - 658 660 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 215 287 850 250 292 558 1206 - - 1064 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 215 287 - 250 292 - - - - - - - Stage 1 699 627 - 512 539 - - - - - - - Stage 2 424 528 - 607 624 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18 14.9 0.1 1.9 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1206 - - 303 263 558 1064 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.086 0.124 0.146 0.053 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 18 20.6 12.6 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 - - 2024 No Build AM 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 67 76 34 Average Queue (ft) 29 6 1 95th Queue (ft) 54 33 11 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 99 61 60 37 21 Average Queue (ft) 20 24 36 5 12 1 95th Queue (ft) 47 66 59 29 32 8 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2024 No Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 26 20 381 730 65 Future Vol, veh/h 65 26 20 381 730 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 71 28 22 414 793 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1304 846 873 0 - 0 Stage 1 838 - - - - - Stage 2 466 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 179 365 781 - - - Stage 1 428 - - - - - Stage 2 636 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 169 359 774 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 169 - - - - - Stage 1 408 - - - - - Stage 2 630 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 39.7 0.5 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 774 - 199 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - 0.497 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 0 39.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 2.5 - - 2024 No Build PM 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 56 20 62 32 329 69 97 607 18 Future Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 56 20 62 32 329 69 97 607 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 13 8 17 58 21 65 33 343 72 101 632 19 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1348 1341 672 1331 1314 395 659 0 0 423 0 0 Stage 1 852 852 - 453 453 - - - - - - - Stage 2 496 489 - 878 861 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 119 154 459 128 160 652 939 - - 1147 - - Stage 1 334 379 - 577 573 - - - - - - - Stage 2 529 553 - 336 375 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 84 132 446 103 137 642 932 - - 1138 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 84 132 - 103 137 - - - - - - - Stage 1 316 343 - 546 542 - - - - - - - Stage 2 433 523 - 282 339 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 36.8 57.6 0.7 1.1 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 932 - - 150 110 642 1138 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.036 - - 0.25 0.72 0.101 0.089 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 0 - 36.8 95.4 11.2 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.9 3.9 0.3 0.3 - - 2024 No Build PM 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 145 158 97 Average Queue (ft) 55 28 13 95th Queue (ft) 115 98 58 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 135 64 157 60 77 Average Queue (ft) 30 46 37 29 19 8 95th Queue (ft) 65 99 63 91 45 41 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 10 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 2 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 8 2024 No Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX E Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 49 16 10 496 214 27 Future Vol, veh/h 49 16 10 496 214 27 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 51 17 10 517 223 28 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 786 247 258 0 - 0 Stage 1 244 - - - - - Stage 2 542 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 364 797 1318 - - - Stage 1 801 - - - - - Stage 2 587 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 355 789 1309 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 355 - - - - - Stage 1 787 - - - - - Stage 2 583 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1309 - 411 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - 0.165 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 15.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.6 - - 2030 No Build AM 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 75 6 441 37 53 175 10 Future Vol, veh/h 8 10 6 20 10 75 6 441 37 53 175 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 9 11 7 22 11 82 7 479 40 58 190 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 882 846 197 834 831 508 202 0 0 519 0 0 Stage 1 313 313 - 513 513 - - - - - - - Stage 2 569 533 - 321 318 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 269 301 849 268 307 559 1205 - - 1057 - - Stage 1 702 661 - 512 539 - - - - - - - Stage 2 511 528 - 654 657 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 210 282 848 246 288 554 1204 - - 1057 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 210 282 - 246 288 - - - - - - - Stage 1 696 624 - 508 535 - - - - - - - Stage 2 420 524 - 603 620 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 18.2 15 0.1 1.9 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1204 - - 298 259 554 1057 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - 0.088 0.126 0.147 0.055 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 18.2 20.9 12.6 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 - - 2030 No Build AM 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 63 80 33 Average Queue (ft) 29 6 1 95th Queue (ft) 53 34 12 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 103 61 60 36 16 Average Queue (ft) 20 25 36 4 12 1 95th Queue (ft) 47 68 59 27 32 7 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 3 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2030 No Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 65 27 20 386 739 65 Future Vol, veh/h 65 27 20 386 739 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 71 29 22 420 803 71 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1320 856 883 0 - 0 Stage 1 848 - - - - - Stage 2 472 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 175 360 775 - - - Stage 1 423 - - - - - Stage 2 632 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 166 354 768 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 166 - - - - - Stage 1 404 - - - - - Stage 2 626 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 40.7 0.5 0 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 768 - 197 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - 0.508 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 0 40.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A E - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 2.6 - - 2030 No Build PM 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 8.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 57 20 63 33 333 69 98 614 18 Future Vol, veh/h 12 8 16 57 20 63 33 333 69 98 614 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 13 8 17 59 21 66 34 347 72 102 640 19 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1365 1357 680 1347 1330 399 667 0 0 427 0 0 Stage 1 862 862 - 459 459 - - - - - - - Stage 2 503 495 - 888 871 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 116 150 454 125 156 649 932 - - 1143 - - Stage 1 329 375 - 572 570 - - - - - - - Stage 2 524 549 - 331 371 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 81 128 441 100 133 639 925 - - 1134 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 81 128 - 100 133 - - - - - - - Stage 1 311 339 - 541 538 - - - - - - - Stage 2 427 518 - 277 335 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 38 61.6 0.7 1.1 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 925 - - 146 107 639 1134 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - - 0.257 0.75 0.103 0.09 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9 0 - 38 102.8 11.3 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1 4.1 0.3 0.3 - - 2030 No Build PM 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 163 182 115 Average Queue (ft) 58 30 14 95th Queue (ft) 123 109 66 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 99 153 61 135 55 100 Average Queue (ft) 31 49 37 31 19 10 95th Queue (ft) 70 112 63 90 44 48 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 12 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 2 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 10 2030 No Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX F Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 28 14 494 213 37 Future Vol, veh/h 85 28 14 494 213 37 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 89 29 15 515 222 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 799 252 268 0 - 0 Stage 1 249 - - - - - Stage 2 550 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 357 792 1307 - - - Stage 1 797 - - - - - Stage 2 582 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 346 784 1298 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 346 - - - - - Stage 1 779 - - - - - Stage 2 578 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.6 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1298 - 402 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.293 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 17.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - - 2024 Build AM 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 437 36 58 179 11 Future Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 437 36 58 179 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 13 15 11 22 12 84 8 475 39 63 195 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 896 858 202 851 845 504 208 0 0 514 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 511 511 - - - - - - - Stage 2 568 530 - 340 334 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 263 297 844 261 302 562 1199 - - 1062 - - Stage 1 689 651 - 514 540 - - - - - - - Stage 2 511 530 - 639 647 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 203 277 843 234 281 557 1198 - - 1062 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 203 277 - 234 281 - - - - - - - Stage 1 682 612 - 509 535 - - - - - - - Stage 2 417 525 - 579 608 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19 15.2 0.1 2 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1198 - - 296 249 557 1062 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.132 0.135 0.15 0.059 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 19 21.7 12.6 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - 2024 Build AM 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 0 16 17 0 53 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 9 0 58 9 Stage 1 - - - - 9 - Stage 2 - - - - 49 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 949 1073 Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 940 1073 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 940 - Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.5 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1073 - - 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - 2024 Build AM 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 91 72 32 Average Queue (ft) 41 7 1 95th Queue (ft) 72 37 14 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 51 95 58 62 42 18 Average Queue (ft) 25 25 37 4 13 1 95th Queue (ft) 51 66 56 28 34 9 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2024 Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 65 Average Queue (ft) 0 24 95th Queue (ft) 4 50 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2024 Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 33 32 384 734 101 Future Vol, veh/h 86 33 32 384 734 101 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 93 36 35 417 798 110 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1357 870 917 0 - 0 Stage 1 862 - - - - - Stage 2 495 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 166 354 752 - - - Stage 1 417 - - - - - Stage 2 617 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 153 348 746 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 153 - - - - - Stage 1 388 - - - - - Stage 2 611 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 63.2 0.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 746 - 181 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.715 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 0 63.2 - - HCM Lane LOS B A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.4 - - 2024 Build PM 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 56 24 68 36 335 69 100 611 22 Future Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 56 24 68 36 335 69 100 611 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 16 11 18 58 25 71 38 349 72 104 636 23 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1381 1369 678 1361 1344 401 667 0 0 429 0 0 Stage 1 864 864 - 469 469 - - - - - - - Stage 2 517 505 - 892 875 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 113 148 456 122 153 647 932 - - 1141 - - Stage 1 329 374 - 565 564 - - - - - - - Stage 2 515 544 - 330 370 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 75 125 443 95 129 637 925 - - 1132 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 75 125 - 95 129 - - - - - - - Stage 1 309 337 - 531 529 - - - - - - - Stage 2 409 510 - 272 333 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 45.7 68.9 0.7 1.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 925 - - 132 103 637 1132 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - 0.339 0.809 0.111 0.092 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - 45.7 117.7 11.4 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.4 4.5 0.4 0.3 - - 2024 Build PM 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 0 52 20 0 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 15 0 139 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - - - 124 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 854 1065 Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 902 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 826 1065 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 826 - Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 872 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.3 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1065 - - 1603 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.033 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 - 2024 Build PM 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 311 228 112 Average Queue (ft) 102 47 15 95th Queue (ft) 259 141 64 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 108 206 58 155 59 85 Average Queue (ft) 33 53 37 34 20 10 95th Queue (ft) 74 141 62 98 44 44 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 13 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 2 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 2024 Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 15 49 Average Queue (ft) 1 18 95th Queue (ft) 8 44 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2024 Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX G Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 28 14 500 215 38 Future Vol, veh/h 86 28 14 500 215 38 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 90 29 15 521 224 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 807 254 271 0 - 0 Stage 1 251 - - - - - Stage 2 556 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 354 790 1304 - - - Stage 1 795 - - - - - Stage 2 578 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 343 782 1295 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 343 - - - - - Stage 1 777 - - - - - Stage 2 574 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.8 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1295 - 398 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.298 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 17.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - - 2030 Build AM 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 443 37 59 181 11 Future Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 443 37 59 181 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 13 15 11 22 12 84 8 482 40 64 197 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 907 870 204 862 856 511 210 0 0 522 0 0 Stage 1 332 332 - 518 518 - - - - - - - Stage 2 575 538 - 344 338 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 259 292 842 256 297 557 1196 - - 1055 - - Stage 1 686 648 - 509 536 - - - - - - - Stage 2 507 526 - 636 644 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 272 841 229 276 552 1195 - - 1055 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 199 272 - 229 276 - - - - - - - Stage 1 679 608 - 504 531 - - - - - - - Stage 2 413 521 - 575 604 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.3 15.4 0.1 2 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1195 - - 291 244 552 1055 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.134 0.138 0.152 0.061 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 19.3 22.1 12.7 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - 2030 Build AM 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 0 16 17 0 53 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 9 0 58 9 Stage 1 - - - - 9 - Stage 2 - - - - 49 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 949 1073 Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 940 1073 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 940 - Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.5 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1073 - - 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - 2030 Build AM 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 92 72 32 Average Queue (ft) 41 7 1 95th Queue (ft) 72 35 15 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 51 96 58 67 41 18 Average Queue (ft) 24 26 37 5 14 1 95th Queue (ft) 50 67 56 32 35 8 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2030 Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 12 60 Average Queue (ft) 0 24 95th Queue (ft) 6 49 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2030 Build AM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 34 32 389 743 101 Future Vol, veh/h 86 34 32 389 743 101 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 93 37 35 423 808 110 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1373 880 927 0 - 0 Stage 1 872 - - - - - Stage 2 501 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 162 349 746 - - - Stage 1 412 - - - - - Stage 2 613 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 149 343 740 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 149 - - - - - Stage 1 383 - - - - - Stage 2 607 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 67.4 0.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 740 - 177 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.737 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 0 67.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B A F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.7 - - 2030 Build PM 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 57 24 69 37 339 69 101 618 22 Future Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 57 24 69 37 339 69 101 618 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 16 11 18 59 25 72 39 353 72 105 644 23 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1398 1385 686 1377 1360 405 675 0 0 433 0 0 Stage 1 874 874 - 475 475 - - - - - - - Stage 2 524 511 - 902 885 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 110 145 451 119 150 644 926 - - 1137 - - Stage 1 324 370 - 561 561 - - - - - - - Stage 2 510 540 - 326 366 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 73 122 438 92 126 634 919 - - 1128 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 73 122 - 92 126 - - - - - - - Stage 1 304 333 - 526 525 - - - - - - - Stage 2 403 505 - 268 329 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 47.1 74.3 0.8 1.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 919 - - 129 100 634 1128 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - 0.347 0.844 0.113 0.093 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - 47.1 127.9 11.4 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.4 4.7 0.4 0.3 - - 2030 Build PM 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/08/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 0 52 20 0 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 15 0 139 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - - - 124 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 854 1065 Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 902 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 826 1065 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 826 - Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 872 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.3 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1065 - - 1603 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.033 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 - 2030 Build PM 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB SB Directions Served LR LT TR Maximum Queue (ft) 336 243 128 Average Queue (ft) 119 52 15 95th Queue (ft) 308 152 68 Link Distance (ft) 1222 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 103 194 61 115 57 87 Average Queue (ft) 34 55 39 31 20 10 95th Queue (ft) 74 129 62 85 44 49 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 14 3 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 0 0 Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12 2030 Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/08/2020 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 16 48 Average Queue (ft) 1 18 95th Queue (ft) 9 44 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) 2030 Build PM SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX H Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 85 28 14 494 213 37 Future Vol, veh/h 85 28 14 494 213 37 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 100 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 89 29 15 515 222 39 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 799 252 268 0 - 0 Stage 1 249 - - - - - Stage 2 550 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 357 792 1307 - - - Stage 1 797 - - - - - Stage 2 582 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 348 784 1298 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 348 - - - - - Stage 1 782 - - - - - Stage 2 578 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1298 - 404 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.291 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - 17.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - - 2024 Build AM Mitigation 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 437 36 58 179 11 Future Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 437 36 58 179 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 13 15 11 22 12 84 8 475 39 63 195 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 896 858 202 851 845 504 208 0 0 514 0 0 Stage 1 328 328 - 511 511 - - - - - - - Stage 2 568 530 - 340 334 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 263 297 844 261 302 562 1199 - - 1062 - - Stage 1 689 651 - 514 540 - - - - - - - Stage 2 511 530 - 639 647 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 203 277 843 234 281 557 1198 - - 1062 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 203 277 - 234 281 - - - - - - - Stage 1 682 612 - 509 535 - - - - - - - Stage 2 417 525 - 579 608 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19 15.2 0.1 2 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1198 - - 296 249 557 1062 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.132 0.135 0.15 0.059 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 19 21.7 12.6 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - 2024 Build AM Mitigation 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 0 16 17 0 53 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 9 0 58 9 Stage 1 - - - - 9 - Stage 2 - - - - 49 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 949 1073 Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 940 1073 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 940 - Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.5 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1073 - - 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - 2024 Build AM Mitigation 10:07 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 3 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/10/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB NB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 30 32 27 Average Queue (ft) 38 3 2 1 95th Queue (ft) 68 17 16 10 Link Distance (ft) 1201 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 92 67 70 50 14 Average Queue (ft) 23 26 37 6 14 0 95th Queue (ft) 48 63 59 34 37 6 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 65 Average Queue (ft) 0 24 95th Queue (ft) 4 50 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2024 Build AM Mitigation SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 33 32 384 734 101 Future Vol, veh/h 86 33 32 384 734 101 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 100 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 93 36 35 417 798 110 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1357 870 917 0 - 0 Stage 1 862 - - - - - Stage 2 495 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 166 354 752 - - - Stage 1 417 - - - - - Stage 2 617 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 155 348 746 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 155 - - - - - Stage 1 394 - - - - - Stage 2 611 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 61.7 0.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 746 - 183 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.707 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 61.7 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.4 - - 2024 Build PM Mitigation 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 9.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 56 24 68 36 335 69 100 611 22 Future Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 56 24 68 36 335 69 100 611 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 16 11 18 58 25 71 38 349 72 104 636 23 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1381 1369 678 1361 1344 401 667 0 0 429 0 0 Stage 1 864 864 - 469 469 - - - - - - - Stage 2 517 505 - 892 875 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 113 148 456 122 153 647 932 - - 1141 - - Stage 1 329 374 - 565 564 - - - - - - - Stage 2 515 544 - 330 370 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 75 125 443 95 129 637 925 - - 1132 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 75 125 - 95 129 - - - - - - - Stage 1 309 337 - 531 529 - - - - - - - Stage 2 409 510 - 272 333 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 45.7 68.9 0.7 1.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 925 - - 132 103 637 1132 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - 0.339 0.809 0.111 0.092 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - 45.7 117.7 11.4 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.4 4.5 0.4 0.3 - - 2024 Build PM Mitigation 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 0 52 20 0 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 15 0 139 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - - - 124 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 854 1065 Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 902 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 826 1065 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 826 - Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 872 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.3 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1065 - - 1603 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.033 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 - 2024 Build PM Mitigation 10:10 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 3 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/10/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB NB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 189 50 60 115 Average Queue (ft) 67 17 5 13 95th Queue (ft) 141 45 28 60 Link Distance (ft) 1201 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 105 179 58 101 51 67 Average Queue (ft) 34 53 37 28 18 7 95th Queue (ft) 75 122 63 77 42 33 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 13 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 2 0 0 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 47 Average Queue (ft) 0 18 95th Queue (ft) 8 44 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 2024 Build PM Mitigation SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D TRAN SPORTATION COMMUNITY PLANNING URBAN DESIGN APPENDIX I Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 28 14 500 215 38 Future Vol, veh/h 86 28 14 500 215 38 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 3 7 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 100 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 2 1 0 Mvmt Flow 90 29 15 521 224 40 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 807 254 271 0 - 0 Stage 1 251 - - - - - Stage 2 556 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 354 790 1304 - - - Stage 1 795 - - - - - Stage 2 578 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 345 782 1295 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 345 - - - - - Stage 1 780 - - - - - Stage 2 574 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.8 0.2 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1295 - 400 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.297 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 - 17.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A - C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - - 2030 Build AM Mitigation 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 443 37 59 181 11 Future Vol, veh/h 12 14 10 20 11 77 7 443 37 59 181 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 1 11 0 1 0 Mvmt Flow 13 15 11 22 12 84 8 482 40 64 197 12 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 907 870 204 862 856 511 210 0 0 522 0 0 Stage 1 332 332 - 518 518 - - - - - - - Stage 2 575 538 - 344 338 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.3 6.5 6.25 4.43 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.1 5.5 - 6.3 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.68 4 3.345 2.497 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 259 292 842 256 297 557 1196 - - 1055 - - Stage 1 686 648 - 509 536 - - - - - - - Stage 2 507 526 - 636 644 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 199 272 841 229 276 552 1195 - - 1055 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 199 272 - 229 276 - - - - - - - Stage 1 679 608 - 504 531 - - - - - - - Stage 2 413 521 - 575 604 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 19.3 15.4 0.1 2 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1195 - - 291 244 552 1055 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.134 0.138 0.152 0.061 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - 19.3 22.1 12.7 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C C B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 - - 2030 Build AM Mitigation 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Future Vol, veh/h 8 0 15 16 0 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 9 0 16 17 0 53 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 9 0 58 9 Stage 1 - - - - 9 - Stage 2 - - - - 49 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 949 1073 Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 973 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1611 - 940 1073 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 940 - Stage 1 - - - - 1014 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 3.5 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1073 - - 1611 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - 2030 Build AM Mitigation 10:12 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 3 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/10/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB NB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 96 33 48 32 Average Queue (ft) 39 3 3 1 95th Queue (ft) 71 19 21 12 Link Distance (ft) 1201 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 53 84 65 83 50 13 Average Queue (ft) 23 26 37 7 15 0 95th Queue (ft) 49 64 59 40 36 7 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 2 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 0 0 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 12 60 Average Queue (ft) 0 23 95th Queue (ft) 6 49 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 2 2030 Build AM Mitigation SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 86 34 32 389 743 101 Future Vol, veh/h 86 34 32 389 743 101 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 8 1 0 0 9 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - 100 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 5 1 0 Mvmt Flow 93 37 35 423 808 110 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1373 880 927 0 - 0 Stage 1 872 - - - - - Stage 2 501 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 162 349 746 - - - Stage 1 412 - - - - - Stage 2 613 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 152 343 740 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 152 - - - - - Stage 1 389 - - - - - Stage 2 607 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 64.8 0.8 0 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 740 - 180 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - 0.725 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - 64.8 - - HCM Lane LOS B - F - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.6 - - 2030 Build PM Mitigation 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 1 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 10.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 57 24 69 37 339 69 101 618 22 Future Vol, veh/h 15 11 17 57 24 69 37 339 69 101 618 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 22 22 0 8 3 0 8 3 0 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - 50 - - - 75 - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 17 0 0 7 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 11 Mvmt Flow 16 11 18 59 25 72 39 353 72 105 644 23 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1398 1385 686 1377 1360 405 675 0 0 433 0 0 Stage 1 874 874 - 475 475 - - - - - - - Stage 2 524 511 - 902 885 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.27 6.5 6.2 7.17 6.5 6.23 4.1 - - 4.1 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.27 5.5 - 6.17 5.5 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.653 4 3.3 3.563 4 3.327 2.2 - - 2.2 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 110 145 451 119 150 644 926 - - 1137 - - Stage 1 324 370 - 561 561 - - - - - - - Stage 2 510 540 - 326 366 - - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 73 122 438 92 126 634 919 - - 1128 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 73 122 - 92 126 - - - - - - - Stage 1 304 333 - 526 525 - - - - - - - Stage 2 403 505 - 268 329 - - - - - - - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 47.1 74.3 0.8 1.2 HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 919 - - 129 100 634 1128 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - 0.347 0.844 0.113 0.093 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 0 - 47.1 127.9 11.4 8.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - E F B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 1.4 4.7 0.4 0.3 - - 2030 Build PM Mitigation 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 2 Attachment D HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave 04/10/2020 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Future Vol, veh/h 14 0 48 18 0 28 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 15 0 52 20 0 30 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 15 0 139 15 Stage 1 - - - - 15 - Stage 2 - - - - 124 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 854 1065 Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 902 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1603 - 826 1065 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 826 - Stage 1 - - - - 1008 - Stage 2 - - - - 872 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 5.3 8.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 1065 - - 1603 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.033 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 7.3 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 - 2030 Build PM Mitigation 10:15 am 04/08/2020 Synchro 11 Report EPR Page 3 Attachment D Queuing and Blocking Report 04/10/2020 Intersection: 1: Jefferson Park Ave & Stribling Ave Movement EB NB NB SB Directions Served LR L T TR Maximum Queue (ft) 239 51 60 100 Average Queue (ft) 91 18 5 12 95th Queue (ft) 207 46 29 54 Link Distance (ft) 1201 1252 540 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 2: Jefferson Park Ave & Sunset Ave/Cleveland Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LTR L TR Maximum Queue (ft) 98 154 58 130 60 87 Average Queue (ft) 34 54 38 30 19 9 95th Queue (ft) 72 117 64 87 44 42 Link Distance (ft) 452 317 342 1252 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 14 3 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 2 0 0 Intersection: 3: Site Entrance & Stribling Ave Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 49 Average Queue (ft) 1 19 95th Queue (ft) 9 45 Link Distance (ft) 1154 552 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12 2030 Build PM Mitigation SimTraffic Report EPR Page 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Stuart Gardner Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 7:05 AM To: slf9d@embarqmail.com Cc: FSNA Board; Alfele, Matthew Subject: Re: [fsna-board] 240 Stribling revised file Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Thank you for this. While Objective #10 references the widening of Stribling to encourage public transport and improved safety, I didn’t see any reference to mitigating the effect of increased traffic and associated noise on the surrounding / existing neighbors. For example, Robertson and Highland Avenues are already improperly used as high speed cut throughs. Stuart On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 10:17 PM SUSAN FOARD wrote: Thanks for the 240 Stribling file, Matt. Suggestions: 1. Take a look at Porter Ave./Oak Lawn from the end of Woodland Drive after the recent rains: Has Southern Development provided for less erosion in the plans for 240 Stribling? 2. I moved a volunteer 2ft. tall willow oak from along the fence line into the center of my backyard some 30 years ago. It grew fast and is now very tall and its leaves are small and easily disposed of, but it drops thin branches frequently, Might pick a different tree. My tulip poplar is also very tall, and these are liable to attract lightening strikes: pick a different tree? 3. The plans for pedestrian routes to schools don't seem to be in this pdf. Because this site is the farthest point in the entire neighborhood from either of our two elementary schools, I am curious about whether any child under 12 will be able to walk safely from 240 Stribling to and from school. 4. $2 million for fixing Stribling Ave. is an improvement. Is it enough? 5. A note says that gas is not planned to be provided. Is there any way to require solar electricity and electric outlets for vehicles? -- Susan Lee Foard 2528 Woodland Drive Charlottesville, Va 22903 slf9d@embarqmail.com 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: SUSAN FOARD Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 10:18 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: FSNA Board Subject: 240 Stribling revised file Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Thanks for the 240 Stribling file, Matt. Suggestions: 1. Take a look at Porter Ave./Oak Lawn from the end of Woodland Drive after the recent rains: Has Southern Development provided for less erosion in the plans for 240 Stribling? 2. I moved a volunteer 2ft. tall willow oak from along the fence line into the center of my backyard some 30 years ago. It grew fast and is now very tall and its leaves are small and easily disposed of, but it drops thin branches frequently, Might pick a different tree. My tulip poplar is also very tall, and these are liable to attract lightening strikes: pick a different tree? 3. The plans for pedestrian routes to schools don't seem to be in this pdf. Because this site is the farthest point in the entire neighborhood from either of our two elementary schools, I am curious about whether any child under 12 will be able to walk safely from 240 Stribling to and from school. 4. $2 million for fixing Stribling Ave. is an improvement. Is it enough? 5. A note says that gas is not planned to be provided. Is there any way to require solar electricity and electric outlets for vehicles? -- Susan Lee Foard 2528 Woodland Drive Charlottesville, Va 22903 slf9d@embarqmail.com 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:43 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: 240 Stribling Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Abi Pare Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 5:45 PM To: Council ; Planning Commission Cc: fsna‐board@googlegroups.com Subject: 240 Stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** We are residents of Morgan Court in the Huntley neighborhood and we would like our comments to be considered for the public record regarding the 240 Stribling Avenue development project. We have already voiced our concerns about this development at the public meeting in March 2020. We bought our house on Morgan Court in 2011 largely because of the location: within a quiet neighborhood, on a tranquil cul-de-sac with minimal noise and traffic. Since that time, the fire service deemed the streets not wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles which resulted in a fire lane being established. Parking has been problematic since and, while the fire lane has helped with two way traffic, the street is still inadequate when cars are passing. We are extremely disappointed that the harmonious Huntley neighborhood we were 'sold' is under threat from the above development. We are particularly perturbed by the proposed cut through into Morgan Court and the increased traffic that would render an already taxing street more intolerable. A pedestrian/ bicycle link and an emergency vehicle access would of course be acceptable, but full daily traffic would be totally objectionable. In addition, Stribling Ave and the intersection with JPA are wholly inadequate to safely accommodate the resultant through traffic, and would create enormous disruption, danger and noise for a narrow street that was not constructed for the 2000+ estimated extra car journeys from the 170 units. We are regular cyclists and walkers, and Stribling is already unsafe in its current state with inadequate width, sidewalk and street lighting. To add further congestion would result in extremely perilous conditions and probable fatalities. We are concerned as to the impact on our standard of living, safety and property values. This cut through into Morgan Court should NOT be approved and it should remain a cul-de-sac. Secondly, Stribling Ave needs to be adequately widened, have a sidewalk and lighting installed along its whole length, and proper traffic lights in place at the JPA intersection BEFORE the development is built. We would be grateful if you would submit our email into the public record. 1 Attachment E Sincerely, Abigail and Tim Pare 540-840-9552 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:56 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: 240 Stribling Avenue Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Rice Joe Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:18 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Fwd: 240 Stribling Avenue FYI Joe Rice, Deputy Director of Communications office 434-970-3707 cell 434-409-8226 ricej@charlottesville.org From: Andrea Hawkes Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:17:05 PM To: Rice Joe Subject: 240 Stribling Avenue ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hello Joe, Thanks for your email invitation to comment on the Carrsgrove property. I live at 260 Stribling Avenue (the end, near the top of Nob Hill). I live 2 houses outside of the city, but am heavily affected by city traffic. I have a special vantage point from my porch where I can see a lot of the Stribling. Directly in front of my house is a tight, one-lane road where trucks have unfortunately tried to turn around, and they've broken the water meter (twice) rammed into the neighbors fence, mowed down my lilies, and made muddy messes on my yard, all because the road is about 8 feet wide at the corner of nob hill and stribling. Since the pandemic and all the online shopping, we have constant trucks (UPS, DHL, FedEx, USPS, Time disposal trash, time disposal recycle). For a street that looks like a one-car driveway, it's pretty busy! There are about 10 mailboxes in front of my house and people frequently stop their cars and get out and get the mail. We've had to replace our mailboxes 3 times in the last 9 years because drivers plow them over, so we have gradually moved them toward my yard, up a slope, which makes it difficult to approach from the car. So when someone is getting their mail, no one gets to pass. Maybe a biker, but a stroller has to wait. 1 Attachment E The mailboxes were destroyed because people speed and it's a blind corner right there. People try to cut time in their day by taking the back way, and I am just waiting for someone to get hit. If you allow the population to double on Stribling, you can be sure the new occupants will use this short cut. Injuries will happen. This whole plan has injuries built right into it. Please consider the safety of the people and do not rezone this area to high density. The effects will be catastrophic. Because of the existing dangers to pedestrians, Stribling has been on a wait list for a sidewalk for over a decade. Common sense needs to prevail on this one. Please. Thanks for listening, Andrea Hawkes 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 12:02 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Proposed Development on Stribling Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Anna Bondi Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 11:40 AM To: Council ; Planning Commission Subject: Proposed Development on Stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** To the Charlottesville City Council and Charlottesville Planning Commission, I am a new resident as of June 2020 to the Huntley neighborhood and I have been so pleased to return to beautiful Charlottesville. The Huntley neighborhood is a lovely area with friendly and accepting people and I am very much enjoying my new home in the area. Being outdoors is life-giving to me, especially with the heightened stressors and distancing brought on by the pandemic. Charlottesville offers so many ways to enjoy the outdoors. Every day as I drive to and from work, I notice that many others feel this way as, regardless of weather, there are always a variety of people walking, running, dog walking, and biking along Huntley, Stribling, JPA and the surrounding areas. As an outdoor enthusiast myself, this brings joy to my soul. It has also created some anxiety as Stribling is a narrow road without sidewalks. This is a dangerous stretch of road for all of us who love to be outdoors. There are sidewalks along Huntley Avenue and also along JPA, but you must travel a stretch on Stribling to extend a walk, run, or bike ride. In the few months since my arrival, I quickly noticed this obstacle and have even chosen to downsize my vehicle as I felt anxious about the narrowness of the road and the number of walkers, runners, and bike riders along the road. The proposed development on Stribling is concerning because though it will hopefully bring more residents who love the beauty of Charlottesville and choose to enjoy it outdoors, there is a severe lack of safety to do so on Stribling Road. The narrow road does not allow for the residents to properly enjoy the area and to safely socially distance while being outside. Before any development is begun, the essential infrastructure needs to be in place. First, Stribling Road needs to be widened to account for residential traffic. This needs to be done regardless of the proposed new development. With the expectation of construction traffic for the proposed development, widening Stribling Road is essential. Without widening the road, the safety of residents is at risk. Second, sidewalks need to be built to account for the safety of both current and additional residents. Additional housing must be supported with essential infrastructure and I would urge that these measures take priority and be completed before any proposed construction. 1 Attachment E My understanding of the proposed development also includes extending Morgan Court to support the new housing. I would request that this be limited to Emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes. The playground for the Huntley neighborhood is on Morgan Court and a significant increase in vehicular traffic so close to the playground is a safety concern. The other concern with this increase in traffic is the Huntley mailboxes at the corner of Huntley Avenue and Morgan Court. Drivers and pedestrians often stop at the mailboxes to pick up mail during both daylight and evening hours. To significantly increase traffic there will unnecessarily put Huntley residents at risk. As a new resident, I am relieved to know that the values of the City Council and of the Planning Commission mirror my own. The vision statement of the City Council states that the Council is “flexible and progressive in anticipating and responding to the needs of our citizens”. As the City Council considers this plan and the importance of quality housing for all Charlottesville residents, I would request that you anticipate and respond to the needs of the current and future residents in the Stribling Road area by widening the road and by constructing sidewalks. The Planning Commission states that its purpose is “promoting orderly development of community”. The orderly development of this proposed new construction requires essential infrastructure in advance of the development. Thank you for your time and for your consideration of all of the residents of Charlottesville as you consider these requests. Best, Anna Bondi annakbondi@gmail.com 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: somnig@aol.com Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2020 3:01 PM To: csoubra@southern-development.com Cc: jscottseay@yahoo.com; Alfele, Matthew Subject: 209 Maury Ave ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Mr Soubra, Scott and I are the owners of one of the adjacent properties (2307 Price Ave- currently labeled the "Domson" home on the drawings) to your proposed development. Thank you for sending the landscape and preliminary site plans. Our main concern is to ensure as much privacy between our back yard and your development. If we are reading the renderings correctly, the back fence of our property will be along the open parking spaces on one end and open space on the other. Is there also some type of privacy fence that you intend to build? We would request that you plant some type of evergreen plantings such as red cedar/arborvitae/juniper trees or other tall dense shrubbery that would provide further privacy than just the current fence that we had installed. Please let us know when might be best to discuss this. Best regards, Brent Lee and Scott Seay 1 Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Alfele, Matthew To: Creasy, Missy Subject: RE: Proposed PUD at 240 Stribling From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:46 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Proposed PUD at 240 Stribling From: Cabell Marshall Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 12:43 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Proposed PUD at 240 Stribling 1 Attachment E ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Sent from my iPhone 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:23 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: Stribling PUD application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Chris Meyer Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:22 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Stribling PUD application ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Planning Commission members, I'm a resident of Fry's Springs neighborhood and an "At‐Large" member of its neighborhood association. This email I'm writing as an individual resident of the neighborhood and not speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association, who will send its own observations if it hasn't already. I'm writing in favor of the development AND the City making the necessary street improvements to Stribling to make it work. We need units off all types in this City, the lot is one of the large free spaces we have left (not counting the vast amount of parking lots), and thus, should be put to use with as much density as possible. I'd hope the Planning Commission approves the PUD and send a note with it to the City to provide the street improvements in parallel. No situation for a development will ever be perfect and while not all of my neighbors recognize that, it is the reality of how my house was built that I now enjoy. Others should have that same opportunity that I took advantage of and those who purchased in the Huntley development also for example. Regards, Chris Meyer 124 Oak Lawn Court 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 2:17 PM To: Kristen Petros de Guex Cc: Alfele, Matthew Subject: RE: 240 Stribling Avenue development Thank you for your comments. We will include with the development materials. At this time we do not have a formal application so there are no timelines set for future discussions but notifications will be provided at that time. Missy From: Kristen Petros de Guex Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:57 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: 240 Stribling Avenue development ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Ms. Creasy, I applaud the City of Charlottesville and Southern Development Corp in their efforts to bring sorely needed affordable housing units to hardworking residents and families in our community. As a city still deeply affected by the legacy of segregation and racist zoning laws, I am thrilled to hear that plans for 170 new units will come to fruition in the near immediate future. Our family of five recently purchased a home toward the entrance of the Huntley neighborhood on Morgan Court. While we support the development of the affordable housing project 200%, the proposal to create a connector road between Stribling and the Morgan Court cul-de-sac gives us pause. I know a number of families with young children (including mine) who play outside, ride their bikes, scooters and toddler vehicles along the street and sidewalk precisely because it is a low traffic zone. We would like to voice our concern with regard to the inevitably heavy flow of cars through an otherwise quiet, peaceful street that is Morgan Court. Absent a public, transparent, well-engineered proposal to safeguard children, pedestrians and cyclists on our street, we find ourselves in staunch opposition to the cut-through road. Additionally, as a pedestrian who walks to and from work each day and takes our three children to parks, swimming lessons and other outings exclusively on foot on weekends, we respectfully demand that the City of Charlottesville take measures to drastically improve safety and construct viable pedestrian-friendly walkways along the entirety of Stribling Avenue. Dim lighting, a narrow street and an absolute lack of sidewalks makes for a perilous cocktail in our community. We know Southern and the City of Charlottesville can do better for its residents. We so look forward to welcoming our new neighbors to 240 Stribling Avenue and encourage both the city and the developer to prioritize safety and well-being over profits. Sincerely, Kristen Petros de Guex 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:33 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Proposed development on Stribling Avenue Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Kristen Petros de Guex Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:15 AM To: Council ; Planning Commission Cc: fsna‐board@googlegroups.com Subject: Proposed development on Stribling Avenue ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Charlottesville City Council and Planning Commission members, My name is Kristen Petros de Guex and I am the mother of three young children, ages 7, 5 and 2. Our family purchased a new construction home toward the entrance of the Huntley subdivision at 105 Morgan Court in August 2019. My husband, Marco, and I felt relieved to have found a forever home in the city on a tranquil street ending in a cul-de-sac, where our children and countless other neighborhood kids are fond of riding bikes and scooters, climbing and swinging in the ungated playground and drawing sidewalk chalk masterpieces along the quiet street. That sense of relief turned into dread upon learning of the proposed Southern Development Homes planned community at 240 Stribling Avenue. As a proponent of social and racial justice, an ally of the movement for Black lives, and a resident of a city with a lamentable history of racist zoning policies and laws that led to the demolition and forcible displacement of long-established African American communities, I fully support the creation of affordable housing in Charlottesville. That said, prior to breaking ground on a large scale, high- density project such as the 240 Stribling development, which would add an estimated 2,000 additional motor vehicle trips per day on Stribling and Jefferson Park Avenues, it is imperative that the City of Charlottesville address serious deficiencies and treacherous conditions that currently exist along Stribling Avenue. As a pedestrian who walks to and from work at the University of Virginia and takes our children to parks and other outings almost exclusively on foot, I respectfully demand that the City of Charlottesville take immediate measures to perform a complete upgrade to Stribling Avenue, to include pedestrian, cycling, and stormwater improvements. Dim lighting, a narrow street, and an absolute dearth of sidewalks makes for a perilous cocktail in our beloved Fry's Spring community. We know the City of Charlottesville can do better for its residents. The City must match its rhetoric on affordable housing and population density with tangible infrastructure 1 Attachment E enhancements. Any permit for the 240 Stribling development should be conditional on the long- needed improvements to Stribling Avenue; namely, widening the road, installing sidewalks, crosswalks, lineage, and ensuring proper signage. Moreover, the proposed cut-through road from the nascent 240 Stribling Avenue development to Morgan Court would put an end to the spontaneous, carefree play along our street. It would divert hundreds of cars daily onto our quiet section of the neighborhood, putting the lives of our children, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the well-being of Huntley residents in peril. Creating a busy, congested thoroughfare out of a narrow road where two vehicles cannot even safely pass at the same time is not only reckless, it also goes back on the promise made by R.L. Beyer Custom Homebuilders and Southern Development Homes to deliver a safe and desirable living environment to families along a low-traffic street in Huntley. A cut-through road from the new development to Morgan Court should be restricted to cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles only. As a parent, city dweller, and public citizen, I encourage the City of Charlottesville to prioritize safety and well-being over profits and address the aforementioned issues in full prior to approving the proposed 240 Stribling development. We look forward to welcoming our new neighbors into a community that is safe for all: family-friendly, walkable, bikeable, and responsibly designed. Sincerely, Kristen Petros de Guex 105 Morgan Court Charlottesville, VA 22903 540-903-6947 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:09 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fwd: 240 Stribling Rezoning Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Lisa Kidwell Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:08:03 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Mike Kidwell Subject: 240 Stribling Rezoning ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hello, While I think we can all agree affordable housing is a priority in any city, if the infrastructure is not adequate to support additional housing you are creating a bigger problem for the whole of the city residents. With the current development, there are already safety issues on both Stribling Ave and Sunset Ave. They are both traffic hazards now for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic, especially pedestrian traffic. They both are narrow tertiary neighborhood roads with no sidewalks and poor visibility. Due to the lack of available parking there are cars parked along both roads that impair visibility and make walking on these streets a hazard. The proposed plan of having an access point at the end of a neighborhood cul‐de‐sac on a narrow street with parking on one side is also a recipe for a pedestrian accident! The current road improvements needed for Stribling Ave and Sunset Ave would exceed the proposed budget of $700,000 so how would that be adequate to support the additional construction? The City planning Commission absolutely needs to vote NO to the additional construction request by Southern Development. The City Planning Commission also needs to identify and budget for a solution to the current safety issues on Stribling Ave and Sunset Ave. Thank you, Lisa Kidwell 309 Huntley Ave. 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:43 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Umbrella Magnolia on Stribling Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Lonnie Murray Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:41 AM To: Tree Commission Subject: Umbrella Magnolia on Stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** As there are two very significant developments being proposed right now on Stribling, I wanted to bring your attention to the fact that umbrella magnolia (Magnolia tripetela) occurs in that area, and it is a very uncommon tree in Albemarle/Charlottesville. There are also a significant number of Paw Paw trees in that area, while not uncommon they are culturally significant. Anything that could be done to encourage that Umbrella magnolia and paw paw trees be preserved/replanted would be greatly appreciated. (Note at some point one of the land owners, presumably realizing the trees were uncommon went through and cut some of the larger ones down, so replanting is still a good idea, even if they can't be found currently in the project areas). Thanks, Lonnie M. Murray -- Please note, any statements made by me are made as an individual, and do not reflect any position or association I may have with any board, advisory committee or organization unless expressly stated otherwise. 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:18 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission From: Malarie Mirsky Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:18 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Rachel Breuhaus Subject: Re: 240 Stribling Avenue ‐ Public Comment for Planning Commission ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Ms. Creasy, As a home owner at 222 Huntley Avenue, I wholeheartedly echo Ms. Breuhaus's comments. Please add my concerns to the public record. May I also add:  Stribling is already a narrow, dangerous street lacking full sidewalks and ample space for two- way traffic. Toward the entry of Stribling Ave., there is a seemingly "random" strip of parking along the right side. This parking takes place alone the 10 feet of sidewalk -- which is all that exists along the entire, frequently-walked street. This unusual strip of sidewalk and parking already causes cars to have to "take turns" to pass. The traffic oncoming from JPA Extended must swerve into oncoming traffic to circumvent the parked vehicles.  Huntley Ave. is a narrow, poorly designed that can hardly support the traffic it already has without jeopardizing the safety of adult and child pedestrians. As mentioned in Ms. Breuhaus's comments, the narrowness and Morgan/Huntley intersection have been a source of neighborhood concern even prior to the 240 Stribling proposal. There are records of concern in our Huntley email list about safety of the existing street and existing neighborhood traffic. These comments can also be found on record with R.L. Beyer as part of the HOA meeting meetings in past years. Adding to this traffic in ANY way would certainly lead to accidents at the Huntley/Morgan intersection, accidents at the Huntley/Stribling intersection, and massive safety concerns for neighborhood pedestrians, many of whom are seniors and very young children. With limited yard space at our homes, our children safely enjoy playing between driveways, especially on Morgan Court near the neighborhood playground. I encourage the City to make required substantial improvements to Stribling Avenue before approving any development at 240 Stribling Avenue. Even if the development proceeds, I urge to you reject *ANY* proposed connection to Morgan Court due to the extreme safety risks to our Huntley residents. Sincerely, Malarie Mirsky 222 Huntley Ave 1 Attachment E On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Rachel Breuhaus wrote: Good afternoon Ms. Creasy, This comment is related to the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue. While we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting, please add the following comment to public record. We are residents of Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, specifically located on Huntley Avenue and use Stribling Avenue multiple times a day, both driving and walking. My husband and myself have major concerns regarding the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue into a high‐density residential area. The primary concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:  SAFTEY OF STRIBLING AVENUE As it stands, without development on 240 Stribling Avenue, Stribling Avenue is not a safe road for travel via car, bicycle or pedestrians. However, due to our location near major employers such as the University and UVA Hospital, it is critical for many residents to utilize Stribling Avenue as their path to work via walking, bicycling and of course driving. Not to mention, many businesses in our neighborhood rely on foot-traffic due to the limited parking at their establishments (Fry’s Spring Station, Wayside, Durty Nelly’s, etc), further increasing foot traffic in the area. Certain improvements need to be made and evaluated for effectiveness BEFORE further development beyond by-right is even considered. These improvements at a minimum must include road improvements, sidewalks, and additional lighting. I realize you likely do not live on or around Stribling Avenue for this impact your daily life, so I invite you to take a walk down Stribling Avenue with your family, and/or walking your dog and report back on how the current situation makes you feel.  THOROUGHFARE THROUGH MORGAN COURT The Huntley neighborhood, specifically Morgan Court, was never designed to be a thoroughfare to a high-density development. This is evidenced by the narrow roadway, blind turn onto Huntley Avenue, limited parking, and community spaces and children’s play area specifically placed next to a quiet cul-de-sac to provide for a safe and fun community experience. Adding an estimated 2,000 cars a day for a road that is beyond its maximum would not only destroy the neighborhood community that attracted most Huntley residents to purchase in this area, but would threaten the safety of the children’s play area for our neighborhood. As a family with a young child, I am disappointed that this is even being considered as we purchased our property due to the safety and child-friendly aspect of Huntley. As an aside, allowing for emergency vehicles only is unrealistic and unenforceable.  PARKING CONCERNS With the high-density nature of the proposed changes to 240 Stribling, I am concerned where these additional cars, plus guests are going to be parking, especially if there is a thoroughfare via Morgan Court. The Huntley neighborhood was recently forced to move to parking on only one side of the street, causing severe issues with parking as it currently stands. I can only imagine if a cut-through on Morgan Court is put in place, spillover from this new development will seep into Morgan Court, furthering the parking burden in our current neighborhood. I am sure you can understand our concerns of a major shift in zoning for 240 Stribling Avenue and the impact it would have on our community and neighborhood. These concerns are not surface level, they are rooted in genuine concern for the safety of our families, children, and neighbors. They will greatly impact our quality of life we invested in when we purchased our properties. I implore the City to make required improvements to Stribling Avenue BEFORE any evaluation of zoning changes to 240 Stribling Avenue. If the City chooses to ignore the residents’ concerns over the safety of Stribling Avenue, at a minimum, do not ruin our community safety and standards by connecting 240 Stribling Avenue to Morgan Court. 2 Attachment E Sincerely, Rachel Breuhaus 255 Huntley Avenue -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Huntley Neighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to huntley- neighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/huntley- neighborhood/CAO3hHT7VrwSWURTDgjh6JoR_vcRdaGJxAAck0yn2vquHpmmfjQ%40mail.gmail.com. 3 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:00 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling Questions - Corrected Version Attachments: 240 Stribling Questions.docx Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged Typos corrected From: Rice Joe Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 2:04 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Fw: 240 Stribling Questions ‐ Corrected Version FYI JOE RICE Deputy Director of Communications City of Charlottesville Office of Communications 605 E. Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 c 434-409-8226 o 434-970-3707 www.charlottesville.gov From: MARILYN SWINFORD Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:18 PM To: Rice Joe Subject: Re: 240 Stribling Questions ‐ Corrected Version ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** My apologies, this version has typos corrected. Thanks. On 09/09/2020 1:11 PM MARILYN SWINFORD wrote: Marilyn Swinford 122 Morgan Court 434.825.2710 marilynswinford@comcast.net 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: David Erdtmann Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 1:50 PM To: Council; Planning Commission Cc: fsna-board@googlegroups.com Subject: Proposed Planned Community at 240 Stribling - Safety Concern Hello, I want to communicate that "affordable housing is important in Cville, but not at the risk of our families and community. In order to have proper access, safety to and from public transportation is a must to support our community. A proper sidewalk is need to support safety & access on Stribling”. As a member of the Huntley community, my lead asks are: 1) that "stormwater, pedestrian & cycling improvements be made immediately & for a longer term commitment with a complete upgrade of the entire street. In ton . In other words, that the City much match it’s rhetoric and commitment on affordable housing and density with the actual infrastructure improvements that allow for such.” We walk our dogs every morning down Stribling and it is already crowded and can be dangerous when cars are coming in both directions. 2) "the cut‐through from the new development to Morgan Court should be restricted to emergency vehicles only and bikes, and pedestrians.” Huntley Avenue has many families with young children and the road is already congested during the busy times of day. More traffic would only make the current situation worse. Thanks for your attention. 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:29 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: Letter of Safety and Concern RE Southern Development at 240 Stribling Drive Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Donald Dudley Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 10:42 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Re: Letter of Safety and Concern RE Southern Development at 240 Stribling Drive ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** > On Aug 31, 2020, at 22:35, Donald Dudley wrote: > > Dear Council; > > I would like to express my concern regarding the proposed housing development by Southern Development at 240 Stribling Drive. My address is 218 Huntley Ave. > > I am very much in favor of improving housing in our community, and in general am not opposed to the planned community. However, this development should be contingent on adequate egress and ingress into this community. > > As things stand now, Stribling is simply not safe. I walk this road to and from work at UVA most everyday, and there are innumerable times when I have had close calls from traffic on the road. Most drivers are quite cognizant of the risks and drive carefully, but many do not and drive at excessive speeds. There are blind hills on this street and I am surprised that no one has been killed. Also, there are several families with small children who live along the road, and I often see these kids along the side of the road. > > For this development to be successful and safe, several things would need to happen: > 1 Attachment E > 1. First and foremost, each council member, planning commission member, and the mayor should walk the length of Stribling at 5 PM, and then again at dusk. Walking in our shoes is the single best way to see first hand what I, and may of us, are concerned about. Don’t drive it…you will not feel the sensation of having cars drive by with a clearance of maybe 2 feet, if that. > > 2. Stribling would need to be widened and have sidewalks on both sides with improved drainage. This will require a signifiant investment to get the right of way to do this. > > 3. With the increase in traffic, inevitably a traffic signal will need to installed at Stribling and JPA. > > 4. Consideration of improving Stribling to Fontaine should be made. This would require a significant investment to widen the road underneath the railroad tracks. This would also require creating an intersection at JPA, and probably another traffic signal. > > 5. Another possibility would be to build another bridge across the railroad tracks to Westerly or Summit, or one of the other roads that come off Fontaine. This, of course, would be incredibly costly and potentially damage these neighborhoods. I can’t imagine they would be in favor of this. > > 6. There should not be free access from the community to Morgan Court. The roads in Huntley are used quite a bit as walking and play venues. The intersection at Morgan Court and Huntley is woefully inadequate even for the local neighborhood traffic. The Huntley developers, Beyers and sons, have been unresponsive to the pleas of the neighborhood to improve this intersection (they won’t even cut down the bushes that obstruct the intersection). There are multiple obstructed sight lines, and the mailboxes on Huntley is at the corner and has heavy pedestrian traffic. Increasing traffic through this intersection is a recipe of disaster. If there is a connection, it should only be for pedestrians, bicyclists, or emergency vehicles (and potentially open to all traffic only for major emergencies). > > Thank you for your consideration; > > Donald Dudley > 218 Huntley Ave > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > did0455@gmail.com 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 4:03 PM To: cama 8892 Cc: huntley-neighborhood@googlegroups.com; Alfele, Matthew Subject: RE: 240 Stribling - Public Comment for the Planning Commission Record Thank you for your comments. We will include with the development materials. At this time we do not have a formal application so there are no timelines set for future discussions but notifications will be provided at that time. Missy From: cama 8892 Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 3:40 PM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: huntley‐neighborhood@googlegroups.com Subject: 240 Stribling ‐ Public Comment for the Planning Commission Record ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Ms. Creasy, I am a resident of the Huntley Neighborhood and I would like to submit to the Planning Commission, for the pubic record, my comment on the 240 Stribling Avenue development project. I do not support the expanded, high-density development plan for 240 Stribling Avenue. The current zoning reflects the character of the Fry's Spring neighborhood and the existing infrastructure/roads. The high- density proposal would completely change the environment of the neighborhood and create safety issues for pedestrians, bikers, and motorist. Current residents chose to live in Fry's Spring for its character of quiet streets and single family homes/duplexes. It should be a safe neighborhood for residents to walk and children to ride their bikes. The estimated influx of 170 housing units, 340+ cars, and 2,000 car trips per day on Stribling would create a safety hazard, even with improvements to the street. The addition of a cut-through road onto Morgan Court would create an even greater safety hazard. Morgan Court is barely wide enough for two cars to pass. The addition of any volume of through-traffic would be unsustainable and dangerous. Unlike Stribling, there is no available space to widen the street. Again, barely two cars can pass at one time. If the 240 Stribling Avenue project proceeds as a high-density development, the only manageable and safe way to handle the immense increase in traffic would be to widen Stribling Avenue with improvements to accommodate the traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. A cut-through road onto Morgan Court should be prohibited. Morgan Court should remain a cul-de-sac, a feature promoted to families by the developer and a factor in the purchase of these homes. 1 Attachment E Again, I would like to submit this letter into the public record. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Elyta Koh 434-924-7657 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 8:42 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Rezoning of 240 Stribling Attachments: Letter to FSNA.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Tom Cogill Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 8:11 PM To: Council Cc: Planning Commission Subject: Rezoning of 240 Stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** As long-time residents of Stribling Avenue we have strong feelings about the rezoning request. Our points of concern are attached. Thank you, Tom Cogill and Margo Smith Tom Cogill www.tomcogill.com 434 825-8251 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Jason Halbert Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:47 PM To: FEEDBACK/CITYMANAGER; Council; Planning Commission; Creasy, Missy; Ikefuna, Alexander; Poncy, Amanda; Duncan, Brennen; Alfele, Matthew Cc: Sean Tubbs; erobinson@cvilletomorrow.org; FSNA Board; Charlie Armstrong Subject: FSNA Comments on 240 Stribling PUD Attachments: 2020-9-1_FSNA_Ltr_240 Stribling_FINAL (1).pdf ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Council, Planning Commission and City Staff: Attached please find a letter from the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association relating our initial comments on the 240 Stribling Ave. PUD proposal from Southern Development. Please add these comments to the record for this project. We will follow up with some invitations to walk the street. I hope you all stay safe and well and wish you the best through the leadership transitions at the City. Sincerely, Jason Halbert FSNA Co-President 2633 Jefferson Park Circle 804-347-5337 cell 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:50 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: RE: development near Huntley Stribling comments to file for when an application arrives. From: Gina C Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:35 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: development near Huntley ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Mrs. Creasy, I am a homeowner on Morgan Court. We actually moved and rented the home for reasons including parking and safety while walking in the neighborhood. While it is accessible to many local businesses it is unsuitable for walking. I recall walking 200 yards, over snow and ice with my carseat because I couldn't find parking prior to all of the development. Now, there are new houses on the street and more will be built I hear dramatically increasing traffic. It is VERY unsafe for pedestrians. I would try and walk my baby on Stribling and cars would zoom over the hill in blind spots. Also, residents should be given priority for parking, maybe zoned spots? Otherwise its nearly impossible to park. Please take this into consideration. Thank you, Gina Condi 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:04 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission From: Helen Dudley Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:00 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: 240 Stribling Avenue ‐ Public Comment for Planning Commission ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hello Ms. Creasy, Thank you for collecting our concerns about the proposed rezoning at 240 Stribling. I cannot attend the Planning Commission hearing tonight because I have a cold virus. My husband & I are concerned about Stribling Ave.- a dangerous, narrow street that many people who live on Stribling & Huntley use to walk to work & school and to bus lines. But the street is narrow, with “blind” hills, and no sidewalks or bike lanes. Last night at 6:15 I was trying to drive on Stribling from Huntley Ave towards JPAve. But I had to stop because there were pedestrians with their dogs on both sides of Stribling. There was not enough safe space for my car to pass between them. I am very concerned that at night a pedestrian or cyclist on Stribling will be hit by a car and possibly killed. We agree with these comments from Rachel Breuhaus: Good afternoon Ms. Creasy, This comment is related to the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue. While we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting, please add the following comment to public record. We are residents of Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, specifically located on Huntley Avenue and use Stribling Avenue multiple times a day, both driving and walking. My husband and myself have major concerns regarding the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue into a high‐density residential area. The primary concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:  SAFTEY OF STRIBLING AVENUEAs it stands, withoutdevelopment on 240 Stribling Avenue, Stribling Avenue is not a safe road for travel via car, bicycle or pedestrians. However, due to our location near major employers such as the University and UVA Hospital, it is critical for many residents to utilize Stribling Avenue as their path to work via walking, bicycling and of course driving. Not to mention, many businesses in our neighborhood rely on foot-traffic due to the limited parking at their establishments (Fry’s Spring Station, Wayside, Durty Nelly’s, etc), further increasing foot traffic in the area. Certain improvements need to be made and evaluated for effectiveness BEFORE further development beyond by-right is even considered. These improvements at a minimum must include road improvements, sidewalks, and additional lighting. I realize you likely do not live on or around Stribling 1 Attachment E Avenue for this impact your daily life, so I invite you to take a walk down Stribling Avenue with your family, and/or walking your dog and report back on how the current situation makes you feel.  THOROUGHFARE THROUGH MORGAN COURT The Huntley neighborhood, specifically Morgan Court, was never designed to be a thoroughfare to a high-density development. This is evidenced by the narrow roadway, blind turn onto Huntley Avenue, limited parking, and community spaces and children’s play area specifically placed next to a quiet cul-de-sac to provide for a safe and fun community experience. Adding an estimated 2,000 cars a day for a road that is beyond its maximum would not only destroy the neighborhood community that attracted most Huntley residents to purchase in this area, but would threaten the safety of the children’s play area for our neighborhood. As a family with a young child, I am disappointed that this is even being considered as we purchased our property due to the safety and child-friendly aspect of Huntley. As an aside, allowing for emergency vehicles only is unrealistic and unenforceable.  PARKING CONCERNS With the high-density nature of the proposed changes to 240 Stribling, I am concerned where these additional cars, plus guests are going to be parking, especially if there is a thoroughfare via Morgan Court. The Huntley neighborhood was recently forced to move to parking on only one side of the street, causing severe issues with parking as it currently stands. I can only imagine if a cut-through on Morgan Court is put in place, spillover from this new development will seep into Morgan Court, furthering the parking burden in our current neighborhood. I am sure you can understand our concerns of a major shift in zoning for 240 Stribling Avenueand the impact it would have on our community and neighborhood. These concerns are not surface level, they are rooted in genuine concern for the safety of our families, children, and neighbors. I implore the City to make required improvements to Stribling Avenue BEFOREany evaluation of zoning changes to 240 Stribling Avenue. If the City chooses to ignore the residents’ concerns over the safety of Stribling Avenue, at a minimum, do not ruin our community safety and standards by connecting 240 Stribling Avenue to Morgan Court. (above from Rachel Breuhaus) Thank you Helen & Donald Dudley 218 Huntley Ave Charlottesville 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Jason Halbert Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:59 AM To: Hill, Heather; mpayne1923@gmail.com Cc: Alfele, Matthew; Duncan, Brennen; Poncy, Amanda; FEEDBACK/CITYMANAGER; FSNA Board; Oberdorfer, Paul; Lloyd Snook; Dawn Elizabeth Hunt; Walker, Nikuyah; Senamagill Subject: Fwd: [fsna-board] RE: 240 Stribling: checking in Attachments: Stribling Ave @ Huntley Mansion NB Summary.pdf; Stribling Ave @ Huntley Mansion SB Summary.pdf; Final Stribling TIA 4-15-20 with Appendices.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Michael, Heather, It was very nice to see you in person this morning, outside and socially distanced of course! We really appreciate the time you took to walk Stribling Ave. with Will and me. And it was serendipitous to have a couple neighbors drop in to the conversation. In response to the traffic study question, here is what Brennen Duncan provided us in September. There was a count/speed done in both directions Northbound and Southbound in May, 2011. Those are attached. Also attached is the most recent analysis completed in April of this year. We look forward to more discussion about improvements to Stribling Ave. regardless of the development at 240 Stribling. But that can certainly be the impetus for capital investment on this street if the City chooses. Please don't hesitate to reach out with any questions. Best, Jason FSNA Co-President 804-347-5337 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Duncan, Brennen Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [fsna-board] RE: 240 Stribling: checking in To: Halbert, Jason , Gensic, Chris Cc: William Abrahamson , Poncy, Amanda , Alfele, Matthew , FSNA Board Jason, 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 7:22 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Proposed Development for 240 Stribling Ave Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Jordan Marshall Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 4:30 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Proposed Development for 240 Stribling Ave ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** To Whom It May Concern: As a runner who lives in Charlottesville and runs down Stribling road several times a week, I was alarmed to see the plans for the proposed development at 240 Stribling Ave. Stribling road is one of the most popular running routes in the city, since it connects Fry Springs and surrounding neighborhoods to both Fontaine and the Rivanna trail. During the semester it is fairly common to see UVA runners out in groups, traversing the entirety of the road. Besides the obvious danger of missing sidewalks on the main road, there is a much greater safety risk in the western (extended) part of the road. This portion of road is mostly dirt and has no sidewalks, medians, or even lanes. It is dangerously steep in places and features several sharp turns that hide pedestrians from oncoming traffic. The rural nature of the road makes it popular for runners and walkers, and the location of the new development means that the number of both will increase significantly. Similarly, automobile traffic will also rise, as it is an easy outlet to Fontaine from 240 Stribling. These two together mean that the risk of accidents will increase dramatically. Until more safety measures can be planned and implemented, this proposed development is a reckless and dangerous risk to the Fry Springs community, UVA students, and all the citizens of Charlottesville. Jordan Marshall 520-982-1429 920 Rainier Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 6:34 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Kevin Flynn Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:55 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 240 Stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express my concern over the project proposed by Southern Development at 240 Stribling Ave. Although I am in favor of the proposal to include affordable housing, I do not believe that the scale proposed project can be supported by the existing roadway infrastructure that serves it.  My biggest concern for this project is pedestrian and bike safety on Stribling. In the existing condition, there are very high volumes of cyclists and pedestrians for a road that does not have sidewalks or bike lanes. Due to the proximity to UVA and the bus stops on JPA, many neighborhood residents walk the road as part of their commute, increasing the mode share beyond what is typical in the city, despite inadequate pedestrian facilities. Additionally, safe access to transit is an especially critical element when considering that the proposed project includes affordable housing units, which will house residents who need safe and equitable access to the city's municipal services.  In addition to the bike and pedestrian safety concerns, Stribling Ave also presents safety hazards for motorists. The unformalized roadway width varies throughout the length of the road, and has multiple locations with inadequate sight distance, due to vertical and horizontal curves, utility poles, drainage structures, and other obstructions. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project will exacerbate these deficiencies in the existing road with no plan to address them.  The roadway capacity at the Stribling/JPA intersection is inadequate for the volume of vehicles that use it daily. This intersection has back ups in the existing condition, and is especially congested during the AM Peak period. Although Stribling Extended does connect to Fontaine, it is not reasonable to expect that it will be used daily by residents, due to the steep grades, tight curves, single-lane railway underpass, and unpaved condition. This intersection is the primary connection from the proposed development to the city's roadway network, and is already beyond its service capacity. 1 Attachment E  Furthermore, I am concerned that the density of the proposed development is not supported by its location on what is functionally a dead-end road. In order to provide a healthy urban fabric, dense developments need multiple points of access that users can approach from different directions and with different modes of transportation. While the City has had discussions with the County on potentially providing another connection to Stribling Ave, it does not appear that this project will be predicated on having the infrastructure in place that is required to support it. The existing Stribling Ave has many deficiencies that create safety hazards, which have been documented for years. Even with the reduced traffic (and number of residents) in this area during the pandemic, these hazards remain a concern for daily roadway users. Any zoning change to increase the density of the 240 Stribling parcel should be predicated improvements the existing infrastructure in a way that can support the proposed increase. Sincerely, Kevin Flynn 238 Huntley 2 Attachment E From: marilynswinford@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 2:17 PM To: 'Richard Fravel' ; Alfele, Matthew Cc: 'Adrienne Dent' ; 'Andrea and Martin Hawkes' ; 'Andrea Hawkes' ; 'Andrea Wieder' ; Becker, Brian ; 'Dawn Elizabeth Hunt' ; Halbert, Jason ; 'Jess Wenger' ; Josey, Paul ; 'Lawrence Walkin' ; 'Susan Foard' ; 'Todd Bullard' ; huntley-neighborhood@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: 240 Stribling Avenue PUD ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Thank you for your e-mail Mr. Alfele. As we all know, Morgan Court is only 30 feet wide and it has three curves, including the one leading into the cul-de-sac with approximately an 80 degree angle. I know about that curve because I almost got hit backing out of my driveway the other day – I could not see around the curve and neither could the oncoming driver who’d gone to the cul-de-sac to turn around. Morgan Court also has a very long hill. Owners on the high side of our street have to back down their steep driveways through a row of parked cars into a curve on a hill. The prior Fire Marshall said that Morgan Court should never have been approved because it does not meet fire code standards. I suppose there could be a difference of opinion about that, but he did move on to be an/the Assistant Fire Marshall for the Commonwealth of Virginia so I presume he knows what he is talking about. Having a large development access the Morgan Court cul-de-sac at an angle and then twist and turn uphill through our neighborhood to the sub-standard intersection with Huntley Avenue would only make matters worse. As you must know, the stop sign at Morgan Court is across from the front door of the uppermost house on Morgan Court. The stop bar is a full car length ahead of the stop sign, but it’s still not far enough for good sightlines up Huntley. That’s because Morgan Court is set back, downhill at an angle. The plan was always for Huntley to have its streets dedicated to public use. However, the Morgan Court/Huntley intersection doesn’t appear to meet public street standards. Because the City has never adopted a private street ordinance, I suppose the City can approve what it wants – but when does the Attachment E rubber meet the road and when are public street and state fire code regulations actually to be applied? This is certainly an issue of great importance to Huntley residents. By the way, all the houses on the ravine side of Morgan Court where I live have only one parking space. Meanwhile, the houses are three and four bedrooms and probably average 2,400 square feet or more. Almost all the houses have two working adults and two cars. We use the stem to the Morgan Court cul-de-sac for overflow parking, When build-out occurs, we will have to park our cars nearer our homes. Because on-street parking is already fully utilized, we will have to park on both sides of the street as we can’t magically stack our vehicles on top of each other. On the ravine side, we can park with one tire up against the sidewalk to leave more room on the street. It would help if we could park across driveways also. If Morgan Court has to be a private street to accommodate the development that is already here, then that is what we should look into doing. Another issue in the Huntley neighborhood is that all of us who face the steep ravine have heavy tree cover behind our houses and this tree cover is close to our basement doors. The path beside the playground comes within about 20 feet of my basement level deck. The answer to tree cover close to our homes is not to cut down the trees. The answer is to not put us at risk by allowing easy access to the back of our homes and an exit point that would be easily accessible and not within view of most residents. The residents of Huntley already have all the traffic on our streets that we can handle. When I bought in the City and moved from Albemarle County, I had faith in City leaders and management to maintain a good quality of live and meet design and safety standards. That’s still our expectation, no matter how good the cause and I/we recognize the need for affordable housing. Stribling is so narrow that only two cars can pass at a time with no room for a pedestrian or biker. The City has reported that the existing right-of-way is not wide enough to accommodate street widening and sidewalks because Stribling is such an old street. There are shallow lots along Stribling where cars park in their driveways right up against the street. I’ve counted 40+ utility poles in the right-of-way and even more set farther back. Drainage is an issue. It certainly looks like improvements to Stribling will be difficult, slow to implement, and very expensive. Our whole community does not have the infrastructure to support a large development at 240 Stribling. The Huntley Declaration was recorded in May 2005 with an influx of additional taxpayers and revenues to the City. The City has had time to be working on usable, safe plans which meet design standards. If you are not there yet, you need to keep planning and install infrastructure improvements that meet public street standards. Attachment E When the City had its Streets That Work planning initiative, I nominated Morgan Court as an example of a street that does not work. Physically, it is sub-standard and we are not looking forward to the traffic from another 14 homes on our street. What we do have on Morgan Court and elsewhere in the Huntley community is a wonderful mix of residents whose ancestors hail from multiple continents. Some of our residents were born outside of the US or have parents who were. We have a number of very nice children who I can hear laughing on the playground as my residence is only one house away. Four of these children were kind enough to knock on my door the other evening to let me know I’d left my car hatch open after unloading groceries. As a place to live, Morgan Court works and by all accounts Huntley Avenue works. Please don’t take that away from us with an ill-conceived plan that probably meets neither public street nor state fire code regulations. Marilyn Swinford 122 Morgan Court marilynswinford@comcast.net 434.825.2710 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:47 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: comment on 240 Stribling project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Sylvia Chong Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 12:34 AM To: Council ; Planning Commission ; FEEDBACK/CITYMANAGER ; CharlesA@southern‐development.com ; fsna‐board@googlegroups.com Subject: comment on 240 Stribling project ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear City Council, Planning Commission, Southern Development, and the Fry's Springs Neighborhood Association, I wanted to weigh in on the 240 Stribling Ave. PUD from Southern Development, as a home owner and resident of the Huntley neighborhood (at 205 Huntley) for the last 10 years, and a Charlottesville city resident for the past 16 years. (Note that I am not a member of the FSNA, and I am writing to represent my own point of view.) I am shocked that the city is considering approving such a large development on neighborhood whose road and sidewalk infrastructure is inadequate for even the current residents of this area. I am very supportive of the need for increased affordable housing in the city, but I feel that the city must do more than approve housing developments -- they must take responsibility for making the streets that these new residents will walk and drive on SAFER. If this does not happen, I fear that Stribling will become a potentially fatal accident site for years to come. Let me explain: I have lived on Huntley Ave. off of Stribling since the early years of the Huntley development. Because I work at UVA, I have appreciated the proximity of this neighborhood to city and UVA bus lines, and from 2010-2018 I walked and bused to work daily. (Now I'm mostly a driver b/c of my 2 children's school/day care schedule, but that's another story.) This means that I have an intimate, first hand knowledge of what it is like to navigate these roads, and particularly Stribling Ave., as both a pedestrian and a driver. For a pedestrian, Stribling is very difficult to walk. There are no sidewalks on either side of the street (except for an absurdly short stretch on one side near JPA that's only 2 houses long). The landscaping just past the paved part of the road on both sides is quite variable -- sometimes, there's an open lawn to walk on to avoid the cars, but at other times, there are thick bushes that force you into the street, and at other spots, uneven ditches. This might not be a problem if Stribling remained a 1 Attachment E sleepy residential street, but since I've lived there, there is a steady and increasing stream of traffic that goes up and down the street (especially around the beginning and end of the day, when people are commuting to and from work). I have to trust that the people driving can see me walking in the middle of the street at the places where there are ditches and/or bushes, but this becomes difficult even for the drivers because there are places on Stribling (about 0.5 miles from JPA) where the road dips downhill and then uphill -- if a car is in the lowest part of that dip, there is no possible way for them to see me on the other side of the mini-hill. The pedestrians on Stribling are all kinds -- people walking their dogs, people on bikes, people pushing their kids on strollers, people walking to work. I have met a lot of renters during my commute who live further down on Stribling in one of the many rental properties, and who (like me) appreciate that the neighborhood is somewhat close to the trolley line or the UVA buses on the corner of Fontaine/JPA/Maury. So I don't think that protecting us pedestrians is just about coddling a bunch of privileged, middle-class, recreational users -- the street is an essential thoroughfare for people of all classes. So the argument that the 240 Stribling PUD will provide affordable housing feels like a red herring, as Stribling is already home to a lot of renters who do not primarily drive to work, and their safety will also be impacted by the increase of traffic on this street. Finally, Stribling is VERY dark at night, and without any sidewalks, it's hard to make sure you are visible as a pedestrian to drivers. This is very important because when winter comes, the street can be almost pitch black at 5:30 pm, which is a very normal time to be coming home from work. Of course, I am not only a pedestrian, but also a driver. Driving on Stribling Ave. is also hazardous, for many of the same reasons I described as a pedestrian. Even with NO people walking, it can be difficult to have two cars driving past each other in opposite directions, since the street is fairly narrow and has no lane markings. Remember that dip in the road that makes it hard for drivers to see pedestrians? It's actually a big enough dip that makes it hard to see if there's another car driving towards you until the very last minute. I've driven that dip enough times to know that I have to be VERY careful in case another car drifts towards the middle of the road (perhaps to avoid a pedestrian or cyclist or branch in the road) and then hits me head on -- I have had many near misses just with other cars. Stribling has already seen some increase in traffic, not just from the growth of residents on Huntley Ave. and Morgan Ct., but with people who discovered that Stribling is a short cut to the Fontaine Research Park/Fontaine Ave. area. (This happened when the JPA Bridge construction closed off that road, but some of that traffic has remained even after the bridge on JPA re-opened.) I'm not sure what you can do if you want to encourage development at 240 Stribling. At the very least, I would like to see:  sidewalks (perhaps purchasing some land from homeowners so that this doesn't take away from the already narrow street width)  better lighting  city mandated trimming of bushes and trees next to the road, especially near the Sunset / Stribling intersection where bushes obscure the view of cars on Sunset who are turning onto Stribling  something to slow down the traffic on the street, especially near the mini hills / dip in the road I described (perhaps speed humps, like they have on E. Market in Woolen Mills?) 2 Attachment E I would imagine that such infrastructure improvements would benefit not only existing residents of our neighborhood, but also the new neighbors we might welcome at a place like 240 Stribling. Of course, there are probably other concerns that my other neighbors are better qualified to comment on, such as the impact on storm water and drainage (since we're really close to a big branch of Moore's Creek, with several small creek systems feeding into it), and parking impact (Stribling is so narrow that there's NO street parking, so if 240 Stribling exceeds the number of spaces they've built in for residents, are people on Huntley, Morgan, and Sunset going to suffer? We already lack adequate parking because of the poor planning of R.L. Beyer, which didn't provide enough garages and driveways for the neighborhood before restricting parking to one side of the street only, and we see a lot of outside parking invade our neighborhood on UVA football days -- but that's a different complaint). During the pandemic, my family of 4 has taken to walking around our neighborhood on a daily basis, and it's been lovely to see so many of our neighbors, near and far, walking around as well. We've been lucky that the early months of the pandemic slowed down the flow of traffic, allowing us to enjoy Stribling more than normal, but now that people are starting to go back to work and school, the traffic is ticking up and the pedestrian experience feels more and more precarious. How can I tell my 7-year- old and 3-year-old to stay safe when they're walking on Stribling if there's no sidewalk to stay on, and no way to avoid walking in the middle of the street? I hope you consider my concerns seriously, and help keep this part of Fry's Springs a vibrant, healthy community for everyone here, present and future. Best, Sylvia Chong P.S. If anyone's paying attention to traffic issues in general, maybe you can look at the increased traffic on JPA just outside of Stribling as well! For a residential street, it really feels like a highway sometimes, with everyone zooming from UVA to Harris St. at top speed (to get to 64 or Wegmans?), even if it's a really wide street with sidewalks (for part of it, until you get closer to Harris). That intersection with JPA and Sunset/Cleveland could really use a stop sign or crosswalk or something ... ------------------------------ Sylvia Chong Associate Professor Department of English and American Studies Program Associate Chair, American Studies Director, Asian Pacific American Studies Minor University of Virginia 108 Bryan Hall, P.O. Box 400121 Charlottesville, VA 22904 schong@virginia.edu http://www.people.virginia.edu/~sc9ar/ 3 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:54 AM To: Taylor Cady Cc: huntley-neighborhood@googlegroups.com; Alfele, Matthew Subject: RE: Huntley proposed changes Ms. Cady, Thank you for the comments. Please note the Stribling item is not on this evenings agenda and the city does not have an official submission. Speakers are welcome to attend the Matters from the Public section of the Planning Commission this evening and provide comment on any issues. Any comments provided on this topic will be part of the project if it moves forward in the future. Missy ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Taylor Cady Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:43 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: huntley‐neighborhood@googlegroups.com Subject: Huntley proposed changes ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hello, My husband and I built our home in Huntley 6 years ago after years of searching for the perfect home in the city and coming up empty. This neighborhood is quiet and very community centric with an emphasis on safety (especially for those of us with children). If Morgan Court is no longer a cul‐de‐sac it will destroy the safety of this neighborhood for its residents and children. The only neighborhood play space is on the end of Morgan Court and is not fenced in—a huge safety concern should this road increase dramatically in cut through traffic. We would not have settled in this neighborhood without the design as it stands (cul‐de‐ sac, limited through traffic) as we have two very young children and safety is our priority. Stribling Ave. is already dangerous to pedestrians and it experiences high foot traffic. We have written to the city on the account numerous times. There are no sidewalks that span the road, the road is not wide enough for two cars, and often the existing traffic speeds. With an estimated increase of 2,000 cars per day this would be a disaster and limit the ability of 1 Attachment E Huntley and other Frys Spring residents the convenience of walking to our local restaurants and stores safely and comfortably. Unfortunately we have sick children and will be unable to make the public comment tonight but I urge you to consider these pleas and the value of our homes and this neighborhood. Thank you. Taylor Cady Sent from my iPhone 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Peter Krebs Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 10:54 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: Creasy, Missy Subject: 240 Stribling Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Matt: The Piedmont Environmental Council has multiple concerns about the proposed development at 240 Stribling Avenue. These align with what we have heard in our discussions with nearby residents and include a few other issues that we would like to raise. PEC supports appropriate residential growth in our urban areas. Smart growth in our designated growth areas (which includes this site and most of the City of Charlottesville) and investment in the infrastructure necessary to offer urban residents a high quality of life is an important part of our region's urban growth and rural preservation strategy. However, we also firmly believe that communities should be healthy, well-connected, nature-full places to live. This project does not meet that standard and requires significant revisions. We concur with neighborhood concerns about the traffic on Stribling Avenue, specifically with regard to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The current infrastructure is insufficient to support existing users; even if the proposed development is not built, proper sidewalks and bike lanes are lacking and should be installed. If this project is built without first investing in proper sidewalk and bike lane improvements then the current, unsafe conditions will be made much worse for the current residents and the new residents. Regardless of what happens with this particular application sidewalks and bike facilities on Stribling should be a priority. Bike lanes and pedestrian facilities are crucial because, as the developer’s own proposal shows, future residents will need to travel a significant distance to reach any services, including the single nearby bus stop. The project includes an extension of the paved greenway trail along Moore’s Creek, which we support, but that greenway fails to connect to public streets. A public greenway is neither public nor an asset to the community if it is hidden behind the property and all-but inaccessible. There needs to be a well-designed and intentional connector between the Moore’s Creek Greenway and Stribling Avenue that is safe for children, the elderly and welcoming to all. This is an important part of the regional network, a connector to the Rivanna Trail and it augments a significant City/County joint venture connecting the Sunset Avenue bridge to Azalea Park. The connection to public streets cannot be left for the future; ample precedent makes clear that it is unlikely to ever happen if it is not done in this project. There should also be connections with adjoining neighborhoods. We support the Morgan Court street connection, however we believe the city should consider/require an additional connection to Nob Hill. It would be worth thinking about this, and the additional network connectivity it would provide, when locating the greenway connector. While we support infill density, this project eliminates functioning natural systems, including numerous mature trees that filter stormwater destined for Moore’s Creek. The project as envisioned erases the existing topography and imposes a grid pattern. The City's zoning ordinance is "intended to direct building locations to terrain more 1 Attachment E suitable to development and to discourage development on critical slopes." Despite this, the 240 Stribling project proposes to disturb over 50% of the identified critical slopes on the site. A more thoughtful approach would work with existing topography, preserving habitats and resulting in a better experience for residents, while helping to protect air and water quality. These changes are possible and we have seen similar strategies employed in other City neighborhoods. This site has the potential to provide much-needed housing stock within the city limits. In fact, this location, in relatively close proximity to UVA Grounds and job centers like Fontaine Research Park and UVA Medical Center, is the type of place where we want people to live. But for it to be the type of residential community that Charlottesville residents deserve, and for it to contribute sufficiently to the connective and green infrastructure that we all require, there will need to be significant modifications to the plan and significant investment in urban infrastructure. I thank you for your attention and continuing service to the people of Charlottesville and the region. Sincerely, Peter Krebs Community Organizer, Charlottesville and Albemarle The Piedmont Environmental Council -- ------------------------------ P E T ER K R E B S Albemarle + Charlottesville Community Organizer Piedmont Environmental Council 434-465-9869 pkrebs@pecva.org https://www.pecva.org/cvillegreenways Would you like to walk, run, or ride more easily and safely? Here are five ways to help: 1. Sign the Community Letter of Support for the Jefferson Area Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan; 2. Join my Advocacy/Updates List 3. Add your organization to our Active Mobility Alliance 4. Contact your elected officials and show up at public meetings; 5. Support PEC so we can continue our work. 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 2:32 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fw: Tree Commission Comments on 240 Stribling Avenue Attachments: Tree Commission Comments on 240 Stribling Avenue.pdf Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged From: Brian Menard Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 2:02 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Tree Commission Comments on 240 Stribling Avenue ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Attached are comments of the Tree Commission on the PUD Development Plan for 240 Stribling Avenue. Thank you. Brian Menard Chair 1 Attachment E MEMORANDUM To: Charlottesville Planning Commission From: Charlottesville Tree Commission Date: September 8, 2020 Re: PUD Development Plan - 240 Stribling Avenue _____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Tree Commission appreciates the opportunity to comment on the PUD Development Plan for 240 Stribling Avenue. Approval of the rezoning application for this site would grant excessive development rights for an isolated, unconnected location that does not justify such density. The 2018 Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies this location as “Low Intensity” development. This would be a dense project even were this a level site without a mature forest. But in fact the site is very steep (some streets with a 14.5% slope) and completely forested, thereby magnifying the negative impacts. The City’s presumptive justification for considering the rezoning is the affordable housing component, but that housing is not prioritized and is set for the end of the project, so it may never actually be built. 1. The Tree Commission has identified several issues with the application that relate to its area of advisory expertise. Because the site contains over 11 acres of mature canopy with a high percentage of steep slopes directly next to Moores Creek--one of the two primary watersheds in the city--the intensity of development allowed by the proposed rezoning would be especially costly to the city. a. Removing substantial mature tree canopy and re-grading the site would heavily impact the health of Moores Creek and destroy a significant amount of the city’s tree canopy at the very time we are working to increase that canopy to combat climate change. This would result in i. Increasing impervious surfaces ii. Increasing stormwater runoff and sediment erosion into Moores Creek iii. Destabilizing downhill slopes with increased runoff iv. Limiting groundwater recharge with compacted soils and lost canopy b. This project does not justify a steep slope waiver. i. Steep slope waivers are permitted when the public benefit of the development outweighs the “public benefits” of the undisturbed slope. ii. “Public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes.” iii. All of these public benefits would be lost as a result of approving a steep slope waiver that creates 124 surplus development units at the edge of town, on a street that does not allow for the increased infrastructure to support it, in a location that the Comp Plan designates as low intensity. c. The rezoning application does not: i. provide 5’ tree planters on 50% of its streets Attachment E ii. meet proposed canopy requirements iii. or preserve “the site’s existing sylvan character” as described in its narrative objectives The Tree Commission has also considered the environmental impacts of development on adjacent city streets and neighborhoods and offers the following additional comments: 2. Current connecting pedestrian and vehicular infrastructure is inadequate to support the proposed density. a. The proposed project would be located at the end of a paved road with neither pedestrian, nor stormwater, nor bicycle infrastructure (see image below). It is clear that the city will not and cannot afford to fund the millions of dollars of necessary infrastructure improvements beyond the developer’s proposed $500K commitment. b. The proposed density would double the daily trips along the entire stretch of Stribling Ave from 2,000 to over 4,000. c. The increased traffic would impact 180-200 low-to-middle income households (80% of Stribling households are renter occupied). d. The proposed project would be located on the county line, four houses away from a dirt road that the county has no plans to invest in or connect to future developments. 3. This development would not create affordable housing in proportion to the amount of development rights the city would be giving away. a. 46 by-right units have been increased to 170 units (+124 additional units / development rights). b. The city gains 25 short term affordable units (affordable for 10-25 years). c. Affordable housing is not prioritized and is set for the end of the project, in phases L-O, assuming those phases are ever reached. 4. Urban planning policy for high density housing recommends a 5 minute walk (maximum 10 minute walk/ half mile) to amenities, which the project far exceeds as these measured distances show: > 2 miles to nearest grocery store (40 minute walk) > 1.5 miles to nearest public park and playground (25 minute walk) > 1.5 miles to corner of Alderman & McCormick / UVA classroom buildings (25 minute walk) >0.5 mile to nearest convenience store (12 minute walk, JPA Fast mart) >0.5 mile to nearest bus stop (13 minute walk, Fry’s Spring Station) It is highly likely that most residents will drive, creating stresses on adjacent infrastructure. For all of the above reasons, the Tree Commission strongly recommends that the Planning Commission not approve the PUD Development Plan for 240 Stribling Avenue without addressing steep slope impacts, Stribling Avenue infrastructure, affordable housing, and proposed density. Attachment E 223 Stribling Avenue: Typical existing pedestrian conditions include blind curves without sidewalks or curbs. 240 Stribling Avenue: Mature canopy of proposed site. Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: William Abrahamson Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 11:46 AM To: Gensic, Chris Cc: Poncy, Amanda; Halbert, Jason; Duncan, Brennen; Alfele, Matthew; FSNA Board Subject: Re: [fsna-board] RE: 240 Stribling: checking in ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Chris, Thank you for the update. As the same developer has gained approval for the Flint Hill Subdivision, it would be an added benefit to their residents to be able to walk all the way to 5th St. Station. Do you think there is merit in requiring them to fund part of the bridge across Moore's Creek/Biscuit run that is currently a significant missing link in the TJPDC plan? I'm not clear on current funding status for the 5th St trailhead project and how a proffer for the city could interact with county land. thanks, Wm. Abrahamson FSNA Co-President 715.456.8553 On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:17 AM Gensic, Chris wrote: We are working so that the paved trail along Moores Creek from Sunset upstream on the city side is extended upstream as part of the 240 Stribling project, and then a connector trail goes up to Stribling from Moores Creek. We are also working to move the existing paved trail at Huntley about 20 feet back from the creek at the points where it currently washes out in floods. Chris Gensic Park and Trails Planner City of Charlottesville 434‐970‐3656 Cell 989‐0061 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Mj Dusel Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2020 10:43 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Oppose: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Strongly oppose zoning change for reasons listed below. Mary Jo Dusel 263 Huntley Ave Begin forwarded message: From: Erica Williams Date: August 23, 2020 at 9:33:23 AM CDT To: Katie Goodrich Cc: Nicholas Cady , Chris Bailey , Malarie Mirsky , Huntley Neighborhood Subject: Re: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission Good morning neighbors. Katie Goodrich--agreed. The $500,000 targeted towards improvement on Stribling Ave misses the point. I've copied some of the info from the letter for anyone who has not received the packet: "If you would like information about, or have feedback on, the proposal we would welcome your participation in a Virtual Community Meeting at 5:30PM on Thursday, 9/3/2020. To register for the Virtual Community Meeting follow this link: https://bit.ly/3axuvY8. You may also call into the meeting by dialing 301-715-8592, using Meeting ID 836 7205 2357 when prompted." If anyone would like more information, or electronic copies of the additional sheets from the application, please contact Charif Soubra, Community Engagement Manager. Charif Soubra: csoubra@southern-development.com Best, Erica Williams On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 8:28 AM Katie Goodrich wrote: 1 Attachment E I found the packet very upsetting and the $500,000 insulting. It will be a multi-million dollar project to improve Stribling and the connection to JPA, etc, so basically all this means is that the Stribling improvements just won't be done or at least no time in the next decade, which increases the danger of walking along Stribling, etc. And the traffic issues on JPA are a whole other issue that they seem to ignore. I am going to write another letter and try to be present at least via Zoom for the next meeting and I encourage others to do the same so that our voices are heard On Mar 10, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Chris Bailey wrote: I can’t make the meeting, but sent my concerns via email. I hope everyone else will, too. Chris Bailey 300 Huntley Avenue On Mar 10, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Malarie Mirsky PLEASE ATTEND TONIGHT OR EMAIL YOUR CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD TO creasym@charlottesville.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Malarie Mirsky Date: Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:17 AM Subject: Re: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission To: Cc: Rachel Breuhaus Ms. Creasy, As a home owner at 222 Huntley Avenue, I wholeheartedly echo Ms. Breuhaus's comments. Please add my concerns to the public record. May I also add:  Stribling is already a narrow, dangerous street lacking full sidewalks and ample space for two-way traffic. Toward the entry of Stribling Ave., there is a seemingly "random" strip of parking along the right side. This parking takes place alone the 10 feet of sidewalk -- which is all that exists along the entire, frequently-walked street. This unusual strip of sidewalk and parking already causes cars to have to "take turns" to pass. The traffic oncoming from JPA Extended must swerve into oncoming traffic to circumvent the parked vehicles.  Huntley Ave. is a narrow, poorly designed that can hardly support the traffic it already has without jeopardizing the safety of adult and child pedestrians. 2 Attachment E As mentioned in Ms. Breuhaus's comments, the narrowness and Morgan/Huntley intersection have been a source of neighborhood concern even prior to the 240 Stribling proposal. There are records of concern in our Huntley email list about safety of the existing street and existing neighborhood traffic. These comments can also be found on record with R.L. Beyer as part of the HOA meeting meetings in past years. Adding to this traffic in ANY way would certainly lead to accidents at the Huntley/Morgan intersection, accidents at the Huntley/Stribling intersection, and massive safety concerns for neighborhood pedestrians, many of whom are seniors and very young children. With limited yard space at our homes, our children safely enjoy playing between driveways, especially on Morgan Court near the neighborhood playground. I encourage the City to make required substantial improvements to Stribling Avenue before approving any development at 240 Stribling Avenue. Even if the development proceeds, I urge to you reject *ANY* proposed connection to Morgan Court due to the extreme safety risks to our Huntley residents. Sincerely, Malarie Mirsky 222 Huntley Ave On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:52 AM Rachel Breuhaus wrote: Good afternoon Ms. Creasy, This comment is related to the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue. While we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting, please add the following comment to public record. We are residents of Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, specifically located on Huntley Avenue and use Stribling Avenue multiple times a day, both driving and walking. My husband and myself have major concerns regarding the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue into a high‐density residential area. The primary concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:  SAFTEY OF STRIBLING AVENUE As it stands, without development on 240 Stribling Avenue, Stribling Avenue is not a safe road for travel via car, bicycle or pedestrians. However, due to our location near major employers such as the University and UVA Hospital, it is critical for many residents to utilize Stribling Avenue 3 Attachment E as their path to work via walking, bicycling and of course driving. Not to mention, many businesses in our neighborhood rely on foot-traffic due to the limited parking at their establishments (Fry’s Spring Station, Wayside, Durty Nelly’s, etc), further increasing foot traffic in the area. Certain improvements need to be made and evaluated for effectiveness BEFORE further development beyond by-right is even considered. These improvements at a minimum must include road improvements, sidewalks, and additional lighting. I realize you likely do not live on or around Stribling Avenue for this impact your daily life, so I invite you to take a walk down Stribling Avenue with your family, and/or walking your dog and report back on how the current situation makes you feel.  THOROUGHFARE THROUGH MORGAN COURT The Huntley neighborhood, specifically Morgan Court, was never designed to be a thoroughfare to a high-density development. This is evidenced by the narrow roadway, blind turn onto Huntley Avenue, limited parking, and community spaces and children’s play area specifically placed next to a quiet cul-de-sac to provide for a safe and fun community experience. Adding an estimated 2,000 cars a day for a road that is beyond its maximum would not only destroy the neighborhood community that attracted most Huntley residents to purchase in this area, but would threaten the safety of the children’s play area for our neighborhood. As a family with a young child, I am disappointed that this is even being considered as we purchased our property due to the safety and child-friendly aspect of Huntley. As an aside, allowing for emergency vehicles only is unrealistic and unenforceable.  PARKING CONCERNS With the high-density nature of the proposed changes to 240 Stribling, I am concerned where these additional cars, plus guests are going to be parking, especially if there is a thoroughfare via Morgan Court. The Huntley neighborhood was recently forced to move to parking on only one side of the street, causing severe issues with parking as it currently stands. I can only imagine if a cut-through on Morgan Court is put in place, spillover from this new development will seep into Morgan Court, furthering the parking burden in our current neighborhood. I am sure you can understand our concerns of a major shift in zoning for 240 Stribling Avenue and the impact it would have on our community and neighborhood. These concerns are not surface level, they are rooted in genuine concern for the safety 4 Attachment E of our families, children, and neighbors. They will greatly impact our quality of life we invested in when we purchased our properties. I implore the City to make required improvements to Stribling Avenue BEFORE any evaluation of zoning changes to 240 Stribling Avenue. If the City chooses to ignore the residents’ concerns over the safety of Stribling Avenue, at a minimum, do not ruin our community safety and standards by connecting 240 Stribling Avenue to Morgan Court. Sincerely, Rachel Breuhaus 255 Huntley Avenue -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Huntley Neighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to huntley- neighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/huntley- neighborhood/CAO3hHT7VrwSWURTDgjh6JoR_vcRdaGJxA Ack0yn2vquHpmmfjQ%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Huntley Neighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to huntley- neighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/huntley- neighborhood/CAJTUOuKnTcn2OjOCYhUqsVtfQNFta_D5vjK 19T4Mg-QSbY81cQ%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Huntley Neighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to huntley-neighborhood+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/huntley-neighborhood/BB199CE6-C54B- 4238-BF7E-4F84852DB050%40gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Huntley Neighborhood" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to huntley- 5 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:12 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fwd: 240 stribling Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: Michael Kidwell Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 2:36:24 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: 240 stribling ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hello, I was unable to attend the meeting on 3/10. I am an owner in Huntley and am very concerned about ingress/egress for a new project this large. Traffic seems to be near max for Stribling/JPA. Also think that elements should be used as designed. Repurposing a cul-de-sac as a major entry/exit way seems flawed and unfair to those citizens who purchased property there not too long ago. Hope input such as this reaches decision makers. Best, Mike Michael Kidwell 309 Huntley Avenue 1 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:18 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling comment ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mike Callahan Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:09 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: 240 Stribling comment ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Missy, We live at 304 Huntley and would like to express support, with a few conditions, for the proposed development at 240 Stribling. First, we support this project (with key improvements) because Charlottesville needs housing. Increasing the supply of housing will help to moderate price increases that are pushing housing out of the means of too many people in our city. However, we do concur with many of our neighbors that the street network (or lack thereof) is cause for concern. Stribling is inadequate for this development. And the Morgan Court cut through is also a legitimate worry of folks living on that street and on Huntley. We have a few ideas for improvements to make the higher density more suitable. First, improve Stribling to the intersection with JPA. Sidewalks, curb and gutter, crosswalks, and speed tables to calm traffic will help the neighborhood handle the increased traffic load, and give people more viable alternatives to driving for all of their trips. Second, consider building a scaled back connection to Morgan Court, for use only in emergencies or if access off Stribling is restricted for some reason (construction, accident, or a tree across the street, for example). Access could be restricted to vehicles by bollards at all other times. Pedestrians and bikes could use the Morgan Court access at all times. 1 Attachment E Third, upgrade the intersections of Sunset and Stribling at JPA. The intersections are dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. It can also be difficult to turn left from both streets during peak hours for traffic. The proposed curb extensions and rapid flash beacons are a good starting point. Traffic improvements may also be warranted, such as a 4‐way stop. A small roundabout at Sunset and JPA could also improve traffic safety and flow for all types of street users and is worth considering as a medium to long term project. Fourth, consider how the gravel access road from Fontaine to Stribling could be improved. The bridge under the railroad is inadequate for two way traffic. And it would appear to be a major project to upgrade the road and elevate it out of harms way. But it would provide alternative access to the new development and for all people who live in this area. It could also alleviate some traffic at Fontaine/JPA. Even simply paving this as a bike way or a one‐way public street is worth consideration. Thank you for considering my comments. We do concur with many of our neighbors that the current proposal is cause for concern. But we think our community’s housing needs are too severe for the city not to consider ways to partner with the developer to help make this project viable. Thank you, Mike and Emily Callahan 304 Huntley Avenue Sent from my iPhone 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Creasy, Missy Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 9:11 AM To: MARILYN SWINFORD Cc: Alfele, Matthew Subject: RE: Why You Should Say No 170 Units at 240 Stribling Avenue Ms. Swinford, Thank you for your comments. We do not yet have a formal submission. Comments are being collected for the project file. Thank you. Missy From: MARILYN SWINFORD Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 3:21 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Why You Should Say No 170 Units at 240 Stribling Avenue ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** City of Charlottesville Planning Commission: Very Worthwhile Objective, Wrong Development Plan We all understand that Charlottesville needs more affordable housing and that this is a high priority for City government. The 170 unit development proposed for the 11+ acre tract known as 240 Stribling is the wrong answer, however, and would be inordinately burdensome and detrimental to the entire Stribling Area community. The development itself is overly dense with a street system that appears not to meet public street standards. It also lacks sufficient parking, and it is not clear from looking at the publicly-available materials whether adequate provision has been made for multiple mail delivery areas and the space needed for mail and other delivery trucks. Are moving vans supposed to park on Stribling and offload to a smaller vehicle before entering? Where are landscape maintenance trucks pulling trailers with their equipment and/or mulch supposed to park? [At Huntley, they park on one side of the incoming stem of Huntley Avenue, effectively reducing that stretch to a one lane road. They really don’t have any choice, however, as there is nowhere else to park.] This proposed 170 unit development is so congested that it will be an unappealing and unattractive community. It will also inappropriately dwarf surrounding homes in mass and density. Stribling Avenue Is So Narrow It Cannot Accommodate Two Cars Passing Cars and Even One Pedestrian at the Same Time A person does not have to be a traffic engineer to recognize an undersized road and bad/inadequate road design. The additional, excessive burden created by traffic from such a massive new development on both Stribling Avenue and Morgan Court would endanger the safety of motorists and 1 Attachment E pedestrians, diminish the quality of life of existing residents (and consequently decrease property values). For multiple years, the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association has requested sidewalks for Stribling Avenue. This request has been repeatedly declined/deferred. As you must realize, Stribling Avenue is already overburdened. It is a narrow, old street on which no improvements have been made for at least 35 years, with the possible exception of a short stretch of sidewalk on one side. I exclude the Huntley entrance improvements as they did not increase the capacity of the road, but brought a lot more traffic. There are somewhere between 180 and 200 homes that use Stribling’s terminus with JPA extended as their primary means of ingress and egress. As you know, Stribling extended turns into a one lane and then a dirt road as it winds its way to Fontaine Avenue, where only right turn is allowed. Because of the dust and inability to turn left, very few people leave Stribling that way. The Cleveland intersection does not match up, which makes turning left onto JPA extended very difficult. Not many Stribling Area residents go out that way and then only if they are turning right. Stribling Roadway, Sidewalk, and Bike Improvements Look Like a Multi-Year Project The improvements that are already needed for Stribling Avenue look like a multi-year project whose timeframe would be well beyond the timeframe of Southern Development. Have the preliminary design and engineering been completed? Is there a preliminary cost estimate? Have potential sources of funding been identified? If not, the upzoning of 240 Stribling Avenue is severely premature and inappropriate. The additional traffic would put residents and visitors, particularly pedestrians, at even greater risk. Until there is a firm schedule for Stribling Road upgrades, the 170 unit proposal should not be approved. City Adherence to Its Own Street Design Standards Doesn’t the City of Charlottesville have a responsibility to follow its own guidelines for the safety and security of its residents and to ensure that Charlottesville’s development is orderly, safe, and coherent? If this is so, how can 240 Stribling even be considered in its current state, in spite of the heartfelt goal of more affordable housing? I know that VDOT sets standards and that municipalities can either adopt VDOT standards (which I understand Charlottesville has done) or adopt even more stringent standards. Stribling is already past design capacity with no pedestrian and or bike pathways. How can it possibly meet the criteria for the addition of a huge 170 unit development? What do City and/or developer traffic studies say? You are requiring a traffic study from Southern Development, aren’t you? Morgan Court is only 30 Feet Wide, Has Parking On One Side, Has No Pull Over Area for Mail Delivery and Pick-Up, and Has a Severely Sub-Standard Intersection with Huntley Avenue Whatever decisions are made, Morgan Court absolutely has no capacity to take on additional traffic. The main length of the street has a fairly steep S-shaped hill leading up to a severely deficient intersection. Residents must back into this narrow street, often with limited visibility. The Morgan Court/Huntley Avenue intersection is like nothing I have ever seen! Our intersection is set back, downhill and at an angle. It doesn’t help that Huntley Avenue takes a jog to the right at our 2 Attachment E intersection. The plan was for Huntley’s Streets to be dedicated to public use someday, as mentioned in the Declaration and discussed by Jim Tolbert. The Morgan Court stop sign is across from the front door of the uppermost house under construction. The stop bar is a full car’s length in front of the stop bar, but that still isn’t far enough out for Morgan Court drivers to see incoming traffic on Huntley Avenue. Instead, we must edge out even farther into the intersection. When residents or a mail truck are parked in front of the mailboxes close to the intersection, sight distances are even worse and we have to edge out farther to see. The concept of a sight triangle is a complete joke. Some of you may know that I first contacted the City Planning Department in February 2014 when the Beyers started construction on the mailbox structure closest to the intersection. I told Paul Beyer that if they put a mail structure close to the intersection, that we would never be able to see pulling out of Morgan Court. The Beyers went ahead with their plans and the City responded that it could do nothing because Huntley has private streets and the City does not have a Private Street Ordinance -- why not? The City should have adopted a Private Street Ordinance when it adopted the PUD Ordinance. To my knowledge, it has yet to do so. You have no idea the fury and frustration that a parent feels when his/her teenager comes home and says they almost got hit AGAIN pulling out of Morgan Court. I had a near miss myself. We are residents of Charlottesville and the Commonwealth. Why don’t we have the safe streets and intersections that all Virginia residents are supposed to have? I do want to thank the Planning Department for seeing that the striping was installed. Maybe that was part of the plan for the mailboxes, but it has helped to pull the traffic farther away from those of us on Morgan Court so we have more room to edge out. Why did the City ever approve the Site Plan for the Morgan Court/Huntley Intersection? I understand that the PUD Ordinance adopted into 2002 was to encourage infill development and to bring more taxpayers into the City. That was accomplished with Huntley, but the street standards established for all Virginia and City residents should never have been violated to such an extent to accomplish this goal. The intersection is so severely deficient that it is not clear if Morgan Court can ever be dedicated to public use . This intersection should serve as a testament as to why public street standards should not be violated, whether for more taxpayers or for affordable housing. Improving the Morgan Court/Huntley Avenue Intersection If the three trees, other landscaping, and fence at the intersection were removed, along with the set of mailboxes near the intersection, the Morgan Court intersection could be improved - perhaps to the extent that it could handle the 34 planned homes (we have 20 now, with one under construction). Whether It can be improved enough to meet public street standards is questionable. What is absolutely clear is that Morgan court and its substandard intersection will NEVER be able to handle being one of two entrances into a 170 unit community, or even any more traffic. It is a 30 foot wide street that was never intended for only a low volume of traffic. Let 240 Stribling Avenue Provide Its Own Two Points of Access 3 Attachment E If the 240 Stribling Avenue entrance road had a divided median and both incoming and outgoing lanes were sufficiently wide, would that not meet the standard for providing two major access points? Yes there would be less density, but that would be a very good thing for the community. Tell Charlie Armstrong and the rest of Southern Development that a reduction in density could be a very good thing for them due to the high cost of condo development – in addition to condo association documents, the Declarant must file registration documents along with filing fees and pay condo fees for all unsold/unrented units once the certificate of occupancy is obtained for any given building. The Developer/Declarant must also bond their share of condo association dues (unless the regs have become less burdensome since I looked last, which I highly doubt). Full replacement reserve calculations must be included in Condo Association dues, so Condo Dues are always high. The relatively small condo units don’t look like they could very readily carry the extra costs. Southern Development will have to have separate Condo and Townhome Association documents unless they want to have to include full replacement reserve costs in their townhome dues as well (substantially driving up those dues). Given the scale of the proposed 170 unit community and the fact that the apartment/condo buildings average 15 one-bedroom apartments and 9 two-bedroom apartments in walk-up flats, this would definitely be a riskier than average project. We also know from Huntley that just because the City approves a site plan, that doesn’t mean that the roads meet public design standards even if they are supposed to. Decline in Property Values and the Reputation of the City as a Good (and Safe) Place to Live Will Occur: 1) If High Density Development Occurs Before Road and Pedestrian Improvements are made, and 2) If Morgan Court is opened up to Additional Traffic. There is no doubt that overburdening roads, particularly Morgan Court whose intersection is poorly designed, would lead to a drop in property values. Every neighbor I have spoken with on Morgan Court told me they would never have bought if they had gotten even the first inkling that the cul-de- sac might be opened up for through traffic. I feel the same way. I was told that Morgan Court was approved in spite of being only 30 feet wide because of the low traffic volume. The City approved the Huntley plan to bring more taxpayers into the City and we took the bait. It would be wrong to fundamentally change the community we bought into, to diminish our quality of life, to endanger our safety, and to depress the value of our homes by putting more traffic onto Morgan Court. I hope this is not your plan and that it will never happen. Homeowners (including on Stribling and Sunset) work hard to buy and maintain our properties. Inappropriate changes to our community would be an extreme violation in the trust we put into the City when we bought homes here. Comprehensive Plan I know that the Comp Plan includes upzoning. It also includes road improvements and a connection on the back end of Stribling so that all traffic does not have to go out JPA extended. Without these improvements, 240 Stribling upzoning is premature. I will send photos in a subsequent e-mail. Marilyn Swinford 4 Attachment E 122 Morgan Court 434.825.2710 5 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Poncy, Amanda Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:02 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: 240 Stribling Avenue - Public Comment for Planning Commission I’m sure you’ve gotten these… From: Rachel Breuhaus Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 10:57 AM To: Creasy, Missy Cc: Huntley Neighborhood ; Kathy Lent ; suzie@pace‐homes.com; Duncan, Brennen ; Poncy, Amanda Subject: 240 Stribling Avenue ‐ Public Comment for Planning Commission ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good afternoon Ms. Creasy, This comment is related to the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue. While we are unable to attend tonight’s meeting, please add the following comment to public record. We are residents of Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, specifically located on Huntley Avenue and use Stribling Avenue multiple times a day, both driving and walking. My husband and myself have major concerns regarding the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue into a high‐density residential area. The primary concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:  SAFTEY OF STRIBLING AVENUE As it stands, without development on 240 Stribling Avenue, Stribling Avenue is not a safe road for travel via car, bicycle or pedestrians. However, due to our location near major employers such as the University and UVA Hospital, it is critical for many residents to utilize Stribling Avenue as their path to work via walking, bicycling and of course driving. Not to mention, many businesses in our neighborhood rely on foot-traffic due to the limited parking at their establishments (Fry’s Spring Station, Wayside, Durty Nelly’s, etc), further increasing foot traffic in the area. Certain improvements need to be made and evaluated for effectiveness BEFORE further development beyond by-right is even considered. These improvements at a minimum must include road improvements, sidewalks, and additional lighting. I realize you likely do not live on or around Stribling Avenue for this impact your daily life, so I invite you to take a walk down Stribling Avenue with your family, and/or walking your dog and report back on how the current situation makes you feel.  THOROUGHFARE THROUGH MORGAN COURT The Huntley neighborhood, specifically Morgan Court, was never designed to be a thoroughfare to a high-density development. This is evidenced by the narrow roadway, blind turn onto Huntley Avenue, limited parking, and community spaces and children’s play area specifically placed next to a quiet cul-de-sac to provide for a safe and fun community experience. Adding an estimated 2,000 cars a day for a road that is beyond its maximum would not only destroy the neighborhood community that attracted most Huntley residents to purchase in this area, but would threaten the safety of the children’s play area for our neighborhood. As a family 1 Attachment E with a young child, I am disappointed that this is even being considered as we purchased our property due to the safety and child-friendly aspect of Huntley. As an aside, allowing for emergency vehicles only is unrealistic and unenforceable.  PARKING CONCERNS With the high-density nature of the proposed changes to 240 Stribling, I am concerned where these additional cars, plus guests are going to be parking, especially if there is a thoroughfare via Morgan Court. The Huntley neighborhood was recently forced to move to parking on only one side of the street, causing severe issues with parking as it currently stands. I can only imagine if a cut-through on Morgan Court is put in place, spillover from this new development will seep into Morgan Court, furthering the parking burden in our current neighborhood. I am sure you can understand our concerns of a major shift in zoning for 240 Stribling Avenue and the impact it would have on our community and neighborhood. These concerns are not surface level, they are rooted in genuine concern for the safety of our families, children, and neighbors. They will greatly impact our quality of life we invested in when we purchased our properties. I implore the City to make required improvements to Stribling Avenue BEFORE any evaluation of zoning changes to 240 Stribling Avenue. If the City chooses to ignore the residents’ concerns over the safety of Stribling Avenue, at a minimum, do not ruin our community safety and standards by connecting 240 Stribling Avenue to Morgan Court. Sincerely, Rachel Breuhaus 255 Huntley Avenue 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Rachel Breuhaus Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 12:57 PM To: csoubra@southern-development.com Cc: Alfele, Matthew; Creasy, Missy; Erik Breuhaus Subject: 240 Stribling Avenue - A Comment on Rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Mr. Soubra, This comment is related to the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue. We are residents of Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, specifically located on Huntley Avenue and use Stribling Avenue multiple times a day, both driving and walking. My husband and myself have major concerns regarding the potential rezoning of 240 Stribling Avenue into a high‐density residential area. The primary concerns include, but are not limited to, the following:  SAFETY OF STRIBLING AVENUE As it stands, without development on 240 Stribling Avenue, Stribling Avenue is not a safe road for travel via car, bicycle or pedestrians. However, due to our location near major employers such as the University and UVA Hospital, it is critical for many residents to utilize Stribling Avenue as their path to work via walking, bicycling and of course, driving. Not to mention, many businesses in our neighborhood rely on foot-traffic due to the limited parking at their establishments (Fry’s Spring Station, Wayside, Durty Nelly’s, etc), further increasing foot traffic in the area. Certain improvements need to be made and evaluated for effectiveness BEFORE further development beyond by-right is even considered. These improvements at a minimum must include road improvements, sidewalks, and additional lighting. I realize you likely do not live on or around Stribling Avenue for this project to impact your daily life, so I invite you to take a walk down Stribling Avenue with your family, and/or walking your dog and report back on how the current situation makes you feel. As it currently is, I have to stop no less than 2-3 times when walking to make sure there is enough room for cars going both directions and we're currently in a pandemic with most residents working from home. Imagine when we emerge from this pandemic with regular commuting resuming and if you want to greatly increase the density of residents on or around Stribling Avenue.  The current proffer of $500,000 from Southern Development, while may "start a conversation" is, as you know, completely insufficient for meaningful improvement. Major improvements to Stribling Avenue need to be completed, AND evaluated, prior to any rezoning consideration.  THOROUGHFARE THROUGH MORGAN COURT The Huntley neighborhood, specifically Morgan Court, was never designed to be a thoroughfare to a high-density development. This is evidenced by the narrow roadway, blind turn onto Huntley Avenue, limited parking, and community spaces and children’s play area specifically placed next to a quiet cul-de-sac to provide for a safe and fun community experience. Adding an estimated 2,000 cars a day for a road that is beyond its maximum would not only destroy the neighborhood community that attracted most Huntley residents to purchase in this area, but would threaten the safety of the children’s play area for our 1 Attachment E neighborhood. As a family with a young child and another on the way, I am disappointed that this is even being considered as we purchased our property due to the safety and child-friendly aspect of Huntley. As an aside, allowing for emergency vehicles only is unrealistic and unenforceable.  PARKING CONCERNS With the high-density nature of the proposed changes to 240 Stribling, I am concerned where these additional cars, plus guests are going to be parking, especially if there is a thoroughfare via Morgan Court. The Huntley neighborhood was recently forced to move to parking on only one side of the street, causing severe issues with parking as it currently stands. I can only imagine if a cut-through on Morgan Court is put in place, spillover from this new development will seep into Morgan Court, furthering the parking burden in our current neighborhood.  SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION TEAM As you know, Southern Development recently completed a series of homes in the Huntley neighborhood. This gave us a first-hand look at their construction philosophy and how they treat their neighbors. I was incredibly discouraged seeing Southern Development construction crews (including, but not limited to, individuals that appeared to be supervisors/foreman) leaning on, placing personal objects on, and otherwise inappropriately touching and invading the space of Huntley residents' cars. Additionally, there was no regard for allowing a thoroughfare out of our neighborhood with regular instances of completely blocking Huntley Avenue, parking on the illegal side of the road, and just generally being disrespectful to the residents who resided in the neighborhood. We have lived here through much of the construction and honestly never had such issues with the R L Beyer crew. I am sure you can understand our concerns of a major shift in zoning for 240 Stribling Avenue and the impact it would have on our community and neighborhood. These concerns are not surface level, they are rooted in genuine concern for the safety of our families, children, and neighbors along Stribling Avenue and the surrounding area. They will greatly impact our quality of life we invested in when we purchased our properties if we are not able to safely walk in our neighborhood or take our children to the neighborhood park. I implore the City to make required improvements to Stribling Avenue BEFORE any evaluation of zoning changes to 240 Stribling Avenue. If the City chooses to ignore the residents’ concerns over the safety of Stribling Avenue, at a minimum, do not ruin our community safety and standards by connecting 240 Stribling Avenue to Morgan Court. Sincerely, Rachel & Erik Breuhaus -- Rachel Breuhaus 919.619.3047 | rfpenny@gmail.com 2 Attachment E Alfele, Matthew From: Poncy, Amanda Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 11:02 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: FW: Please Forward to Rick and Paul Beyer - 240 Stribling proposal opposition From: Kristen Petros de Guex Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 10:47 AM To: Kathy Lent ; Suzie Pace Cc: Duncan, Brennen ; Poncy, Amanda Subject: Please Forward to Rick and Paul Beyer ‐ 240 Stribling proposal opposition ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Rick, Paul and Suzie, My name is Kristen Petros de Guex and I am the mother of three young children, ages 7, 5 and 2. Our family purchased a new construction home toward the entrance of the Huntley subdivision at 105 Morgan Court in August 2019. My husband, Marco, and I felt relieved to have found a forever home in the city on a tranquil street ending in a cul-de-sac, where our children and countless other neighborhood kids are fond of riding bikes and scooters, climbing and swinging in the ungated playground and drawing sidewalk chalk masterpieces along the quiet street. Marco and I fear that the proposed cut-through road from the nascent 240 Stribling Avenue development to Morgan Court would put an end to the spontaneous, carefree play along our street. Moreover, it would put the lives of our children, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the well-being of Huntley residents in peril. Creating a busy, congested thoroughfare out of a narrow road where two vehicles cannot safely pass at the same time is reckless, dangerous and goes back on the promise made by R.L. Beyer Custom Homebuilders and Southern Development Homes to deliver a safe and desirable living environment to families along a low- traffic street in Huntley. We did not sign up for this. Moreover, as a pedestrian who walks to and from work at the University each day and takes our children to parks, swimming lessons and other outings exclusively on foot on weekends, I respectfully demand that developers and the City of Charlottesville take measures to drastically improve safety and to construct viable pedestrian-friendly walkways along the entirety of Stribling Avenue. Dim lighting, a narrow street and an absolute dearth of sidewalks makes for a perilous cocktail in our Fry's Spring community. We know Southern, the Beyers and the City of Charlottesville can do better for residents. Absent a public, transparent, well- engineered proposal to safeguard children, pedestrians and cyclists on Stribling Avenue, we find ourselves in staunch opposition to the new development plans in their entirety. Any permit for the 240 Stribling development should be conditional on the long-needed improvements to Stribling Avenue, including: widening the road, sidewalks, crosswalks, lineage, and proper signage. 1 Attachment E As a parent, city dweller and public citizen, I encourage R.L. Beyer Custom Homebuilders to prioritize safety and well-being over profits and leave Morgan Court in tact and untouched. What if it were your neighborhood; your cul-de-sac; your children at risk? Sincerely, Kristen Petros de Guex 105 Morgan Court Charlottesville, VA 22903 540-903-6947 2 Attachment F August 19, 2020 SUBJECT: Community Meeting: 240 Stribling Avenue - Application for Rezoning (TMP 18A025000) Dear Neighbor: An application to rezone approximately 11 acres of land at 240 Stribling Avenue from R-1 & R-2 to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is being processed by the City of Charlottesville. The application would allow for a variety of housing types, including affordable units, that encourage a heterogeneous community. If you would like information about, or have feedback on, the proposal we would welcome your participation in a Virtual Community Meeting at 5:30 PM on Thursday, 9/3/2020. To register for the Virtual Community Meeting follow this link: https://bit.ly/3axuvY8. You may also call into the meeting by dialing 301-715-8592, using Meeting ID 836 7205 2357 when prompted. In preparation of the Community Meeting the enclosed packet contains the following components of the project proposal: • The land use plan, • The landscape plan, • An exhibit of the critical slopes, • Illustrative rendering of the proposed community. Please note that additional components of the application, not included in this packet, are available electronically. These components include: • The existing conditions of the property, • Parking and pedestrian access plans, • The phasing plan, • Preliminary stormwater management • The conceptual development plan, plans, • A matrix of use types, • Conceptual erosion and sediment • Firetruck access demonstrations, control plan, • Additional illustrative renderings, • Tree surveys. Also, if the rezoning is approved the following proffers will be included as part of the development: 1. The Developer shall contribute five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the city of Charlottesville to be used toward a bicycle, pedestrian, and safety improvements on Stribling Avenue. T E L: ( 434) 245 - 0894 | 142 S OU T H P A N T OP S D RIVE , CHA RLOT T E SVILLE , VA 22 911 | W W W .S OU T H E RN - DE VE LOP ME N T .COM Attachment F 2. Affordable Housing: a. The Developer shall cause a minimum 15% of the residential units constructed on the site to be Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) accessible to residents between 25% and 60% of area median income. i. No fewer than 30% of the ADUs constructed on the Subject Property shall be for-rent. For-rent ADUs shall have a period of affordability of not less than ten (10) years, administered in accordance with the provisions of City Code 34- 12(g). ii.No fewer than 30% of the ADUs constructed on the Subject Property shall be for-sale. For-sale ADUs shall have a period of affordability of not less than thirty (30) years, guaranteed by deed restrictions which include, at a minimum, a first right of refusal to repurchase the property, appreciation-sharing provisions, and forgivable and/or below market rate interest mortgages to the qualified buyer. b. During construction ADUs shall be provided incrementally such that at least 5 incremental ADUs shall be under construction prior to the issuance of every 30th Certificate of Occupancy. Along with the Community Meeting, written feedback is welcome via the enclosed postage paid envelope. If comments could be provided within 45 days of this mailing. If you would like more information, or electronic copies of the additional sheets from the application, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Charif Soubra Community Engagement Manager csoubra@southern-development.com T E L: ( 434) 245 - 0894 | 142 S OU T H P A N T OP S D RIVE , CHA RLOT T E SVILLE , VA 22 911 | W W W .S OU T HE RN - DE VE LOP ME N T .COM Attachment F LOT 33 LOT 38 LOT 22 LOT 28 LOT LOT 8 LOT 15 2,598 SF 2,268 SF 2,810 SF 2,685 SF 4,732 SF 2,830 SF 2,752 SF LOT 34 LOT 39 LOT 23 LOT 29 LOT 2 LOT 9 LOT 16 1,662 SF 1,523 SF 1,628 SF 1,628 SF 2,249 SF 1,485 SF 1,477 SF LOT 35 LOT 40 LOT 24 LOT 30 LOT 3 LOT 10 LOT 17 1,820 SF 1,660 SF 1,776 SF 1,776 SF 2,393 SF 1,620 SF 1,644 SF ROAD 'A' 48' PUBLIC R/W ROAD 'A' 48' PUBLIC R/W LOT 41 LOT 48 LOT 55 ROAD 'E' 22' R/W ROAD 'D' 1,668 SF 22' R/W LOT 18 LOT 25 1,656 SF 1,668 SF LOT 4 LOT 11 1,620 SF 1,808 SF LOT 56 LOT 62 2,132 SF 1,620 SF LOT 42 LOT 49 1,529 SF 1,675 SF LOT 19 LOT 26 1,525 SF 1,529 SF LOT 12 2,208 SF 2,913 SF LOT 5 LOT 32 LOT 31 1,485 SF 1,657 SF LOT 63 1,841 SF 1,485 SF LOT 50 LOT 57 LOT 43 1,536 SF LOT 26 1,529 SF 1,529 SF LOT 20 1,656 SF LOT 6 LOT 13 1,657 SF 1,485 SF LOT 58 LOT 64 LOT 68 1,485 SF ROAD 'F' 1,745 SF 22' R/W 1,529 SF 1,676 SF 1,660 SF LOT 21 LOT 27 LOT 7 LOT 14 2,260 SF 1,808 SF LOT 69 2,432 SF 2,212 SF 1,660 SF LOT 44 LOT 51 STRIBLING AVE. 1,799 SF 1,529 SF LOT 65 (WIDTH VARIES) PUBLIC R/W R/W DEDICATION ROAD 'G' LOT 52 LOT 59 22' R/W LOT 45 1,536 SF 2,576 SF 1,668 SF 1,668 SF 1,525 SF LOT 72 2,164 SF 2,164 SF LOT 70 LOT 37 LOT 66 LOT 36 LOT 60 1,180 SF LOT 46 LOT 53 1,660 SF 1,529 SF 1,536 SF ROAD 'B' 1,525 SF 1,529 SF LOT 71 LOT 73 LOT 61 LOT 67 LOT 47 LOT 54 1,660 SF 1,180 SF 1,668 SF 1,676 SF PARCEL 'A' 1,664 SF 1,668 SF CONDOMINIUM 15,268 SF ROAD 'C' 48' PUBLIC R/W PARCEL 'D' PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM 16,294 SF 10,582 SF 9,990 SF LAND USE PLAN SCALE 1"=80' PAGE 4 OF 13 83 NAD 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 0 80' 160' Attachment F SCREENING TREES (TYP.) RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL APPROX. HEIGHT = 4' APPROX. HEIGHT = 5.5' APPROX. HEIGHT = 2.5' OHU LOT 38 S LOT 28 LOT 33 LOT 15 LOT 22 LOT 1 LOT 8 W S W S LOT 39 S LOT 29 LOT 34 LOT 16 LOT 23 LOT 2 LOT 9 W LOT 35 LOT 40 LOT 30 W LOT 17 LOT 24 LOT 3 LOT 10 W W W W W W OHU W W W W STREET W TREES (TYP.) W STREET TREES (TYP.) SAN SAN W LOT 55 SAN LOT 41 LOT 48 LOT 18 LOT 25 LOT 4 LOT 11 S W LOT 56 W LOT 42 LOT 49 LOT 19 LOT 26 LOT 5 LOT 12 LOT 31 LOT 32 W SAN LOT 50 LOT 57 OHU LOT 43 W W LOT 20 LOT 26 LOT 6 LOT 13 W S LOT 58 W STREET LOT 21 LOT 27 TREES (TYP.) S LOT 7 LOT 14 X RETAINING WALL SAN SAN APPROX. HEIGHT = 11' RETAINING WALL LOT 44 LOT 51 APPROX. HEIGHT = 5' W OHU LOT 52 LOT 59 W LOT 45 W NOTES: SAN SCREENING LOT 36 LOT 37 TREES (TYP.) LOT 53 LOT 60 1. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY TO THIS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LOT 46 SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND REVISIONS COINCIDENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, AND, REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MODIFICATION. 2. SIDEWALKS 5' MINIMUM WIDTH AS SHOWN. LOT 54 LOT 61 3. PLANTING STRIPS BETWEEN ROAD AND SIDEWALK 4' MINIMUM EXCEPT ADJACENT TO PARALLEL PARKING. ALL TREES TO BE LOT 47 SELECTED FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE MASTER TREE LIST. PARCEL 'A' 4. ARTERIAL TRAIL PRECISE LOCATION TO BE FIELD LOCATED IN COORDINATION WITH PARKS AND RECREATION. CONDOMINIUM W W W W STREET TREES (TYP.) SAN KEY MAP PLANTING SCHEDULE SAN QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MINIMUM INSTALLED SIZE ROOT CANOPY AREA TOTAL 31 QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 2" CAL. B&B 370 11,100 32 LIRIODNEDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP POPLAR 2'' CAL. B&B 177 5,487 PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM 67 MTRICA CERIFERA & CVS SOUTHERN WAXMYRTLE 2'' CAL. B&B 177 11,859 CANOPY GRAND TOTAL 28,446 N SA LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 9 OF 13 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' Attachment F LOT 35 LOT 40 LOT 30 KEY MAP RETAINING WALL W W W APPROX. HEIGHT = 6.5' W W W W LOT 55 SAN LOT 41 LOT 48 S LOT 56 LOT 62 VDOT STD. BRANCH LOT 42 LOT 49 TYPE TURNAROUND LOT 31 LOT 32 W LOT 63 SAN LOT 57 RETAINING WALL LOT 43 LOT 50 W APPROX. HEIGHT = 6.5' W LOT 64 LOT 68 SAN LOT 58 STREET TREES (TYP.) LOT 69 S W SAN SAN LOT 44 LOT 51 W S S LOT 59 LOT 65 LOT 52 W LOT 45 W SAN LOT 72 SAN SCREENING LOT 36 LOT 37 LOT 66 LOT 70 TREES (TYP.) LOT 53 LOT 60 LOT 46 LOT 71 LOT 73 LOT 61 LOT 67 LOT 47 LOT 54 PARCEL 'A' W CONDOMINIUM W W W W W STREET TREES (TYP.) SAN SAN SAN SAN PARCEL 'D' PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'C' CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM CONDOMINIUM PLANTING SCHEDULE NOTES: N SA QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MINIMUM INSTALLED SIZE ROOT CANOPY AREA TOTAL 1. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY TO THIS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND REVISIONS COINCIDENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, N 31 QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 2" CAL. B&B 370 11,100 SA AND, REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MODIFICATION. U OH 2. SIDEWALKS 5' MINIMUM WIDTH AS SHOWN. 32 LIRIODNEDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP POPLAR 2'' CAL. B&B 177 5,487 3. PLANTING STRIPS BETWEEN ROAD AND SIDEWALK 4' MINIMUM EXCEPT ADJACENT TO PARALLEL PARKING. ALL TREES TO BE N SA SELECTED FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE MASTER TREE N SALIST. SAN 67 MTRICA CERIFERA & CVS SOUTHERN WAXMYRTLE 2'' CAL. B&B 177 11,859 4. ARTERIAL TRAIL PRECISE S A N LOCATION TO BE FIELD LOCATED IN COORDINATION WITH PARKS AND RECREATION. SAN SAN SAN CANOPY GRAND TOTAL SAN 28,446 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 10 OF 13 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 50' 100' Attachment F S S S S W OHU W W W W W W W W W S W SAN W S OHU SAN S SAN S SAN W W W S WS W W W SAN U OH (29-3) CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO THE PORTION OF A LOT THAT HAS A GRADE IN EXCESS OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT. INCLUDES SLOPES AS DEFINED BY CHAPTER 34, ZONING ORDINANCE. 2.26 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 1.33 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0.61 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (34-1120(b)(2)) N SA DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% U OR GREATER AND: OH A. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZONTAL RUN OF GREATER THAN TWENTY (20) FEET AND ITS' TOTAL AREA IS SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE FEET OR GREATER; AND SAN SAN B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY SAN SAN SAN AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 1.63 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 0.17 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE OFF SITE 0.83 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0.31 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE NOTE: THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE U OH SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 27 FOR DETAILS. ENERGY DISSIPATER OUTLET SHALL NOT RELEASE FLOW ABOVE CRITICAL SLOPES. CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT - ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SCALE 1"=80' SHEET 2 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 80' 160' Attachment F 240 STRIBLING AVE Birds Eye a sheet 12 M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S ©2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 Attachment F 240 STRIBLING AVE Greens View sheet 15 M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S ©2020 ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Attachment F Meeting ID Topic Start Time End Time 83672052357 240 Stribling Avenue Community Meeting 9/3/2020 17:22 9/3/2020 19:10 User Email Duration (Minutes) Participants aakers@southern-development.com 109 72 Name (Original Name) User Email Total Duration (Minutes) Southern Development aakers@southern-development.com 109 John Marshall jmar865@gmail.com 98 Cabell Marshall mcabell398@aol.com 109 Keith Lancaster klancaster@southern-development.com 108 Sarah Ratcliffe sjr7pc@virginia.edu 108 Elyta Koh cama8892@gmail.com 108 Rachel Breuhaus rfpenny@gmail.com 107 Marga Bushara marga@bushara.com 107 Charlie Armstrong charlesa@southern-development.com 106 Tom Bibb tombibbstraightshooter@gmail.com 105 David Burr ledgerdomaindsb@gmail.com 105 Matthew Alfele alfelem@charlottesville.gov 104 Allen Bailey b.allen.bailey@gmail.com 52 15717238612 47 Rachel M mehaffey51813@gmail.com 103 Dawn Hunt dawnelizabhunt@yahoo.com 93 Jeff Greer greerjs@gmail.com 103 Jason Halbert jasonhalbert@gmail.com 103 Clint Shifflett clint.shifflett@timmons.com 103 Kevin Flynn kevinfly@usc.edu 104 Steven Cole iamstevencole@gmail.com 102 Marilyn Swinford marilynswinford@comcast.net 102 Chris Bailey crb.writer@gmail.com 84 Andrej Petrovic andrej.petrovic@virginia.edu 102 Margo Smith mskungka@gmail.com 102 Greg Goering ggoering@gmail.com 101 Charles Moehnke cmoehnke@gmail.com 101 Joan Burr jburr@farbrook.org 26 Adam Smith smittythecoach@gmail.com 73 Kevin Riddle kr@mitchellmatthews.com 101 Hillary Geissinger hillarygeissinger@gmail.com 101 Patrick Foss pfoss102@gmail.com 61 ATP alt0909@aol.com 92 14342969105 99 Andrea Hawkes andreahawkes@gmail.com 100 Abigail Pare abipare64@gmail.com 101 Martin Quarles martinbq@mindspring.com 100 Joseph Williams jmwilliams677@gmail.com 97 Paul Josey p_josey@yahoo.com 63 Kristen Petros de Guex kpetros@gmail.com 61 Brian Thiede brianthiede@hotmail.com 83 Jess Wenger jsw6d@virginia.edu 99 Sean Tubbs seantubbs@gmail.com 88 John Santoski jsantoski1@gmail.com 98 john matthews jm@mitchellmatthews.com 97 June Heintz foah@aol.com 69 14344651084 96 Casey Gioeli caseygioeli@gmail.com 96 John Hall john.hall57@gmail.com 95 William Abrahamson wabrahamson@gparch.com 94 Attachment F Meeting ID Topic Start Time End Time 83672052357 240 Stribling Avenue Community Meeting 9/3/2020 17:22 9/3/2020 19:10 User Email Duration (Minutes) Participants aakers@southern-development.com 109 72 Name (Original Name) User Email Total Duration (Minutes) Richard Fravel richard.fravel@gmail.com 94 Catherine Bruse see.catherinem@gmail.com 88 Nicole Scro nicolescro@gmail.com 54 Rory Stolzenberg rory096@gmail.com 81 Taylor Quarles dtquarles@gmail.com 80 Adrienne Dent adrienneallyn@gmail.com 78 joseph werner wernec90@gmail.com 34 Erica W ericalynn.baz@gmail.com 64 Donald Dudley djd0455@gmail.com 55 Paul Josey pauljosey@gmail.com 43 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APPLICATION FOR A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER APPLICATION NUMBER: P20-0079 DATE OF MEETING: September 14, 2021 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: September 1, 2021 Applicant: Southern Development Applicant’s Representative(s): Charlie Armstrong Current Property Owner: Belmont Station, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 240 Stribling Avenue Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 18A025000 (real estate taxes paid current – Sec. 34-12) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 9.23 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 1.63 acres | 14.3% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.75 acres | 6.6% of total site area | 41.7% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Low Density Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1S & R-2 (Developer is requesting a rezoning to PUD under ZM20-00002) Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Southern Development has submitted a rezoning application (ZM20-00002) with a development plan dated June 11, 2021. The rezoning proposal is for approximately twelve (12) acres to be rezoning to PUD to accommodate a single-family attached, townhome, and multifamily development. The proposed improvements associated with the rezoning will impact critical slopes on-site as defined by Section 34-1120(b)(2). Per Section 34-1120(b) and 34-516(c) request for a critical slope waiver must be heard simultaneously with the rezoning request by the Planning Commission. The (PUD) referred to as “240 Stribling PUD” would allow up to one-hundred and seventy (170) units split between a mix of single-family attached, P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope townhomes, and three (3) multifamily buildings at an approximate density of fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre (DUA). The proposed PUD will have open space in the amount of 4.7 acres and the following unique characteristics/ amenities: five (5) new City maintained roads with a connection to Morgan Ct. and on street parking, six (6) private roads with rear loading lots to townhomes, large open spaces surrounded by townhomes and single-family attached units, three (3) multifamily buildings, and a nature trail. Southern Development is requesting a waiver from Section 34-1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance) to allow for construction of a development that would include up to one- hundred and seventy (170) units split between a mix of single-family attached, townhomes, and multifamily buildings with supporting infrastructure. Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved are shown on the Critical Slope Exhibit (Attachment B) and include lots 45, 46, 47, 55, 56, 64, 65 parcels A and B, portions of the Open Space, the nature trail, portions of Private Road “J”, and portions of Public Road “D”. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 1.63 acres or 14.3 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. See City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(2). Based on the information presented within the application materials, Staff verifies that the area for which this waiver is sought meets all of the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope Critical Slopes per the Zoning Ordinance Standard of Review Per Sec. 34-1120(6)(d): The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section, and city council may thereafter grant a modification or waiver upon making a finding that: (i)The public benefits of allowing disturbance of a critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope (public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes); or (ii)Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. If the recommendation is for City Council to grant the requested waiver, the Planning Commission may also make recommendations as to the following: In granting a modification or Page 3 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope waiver, city council may allow the disturbance of a portion of the slope, but may determine that there are some features or areas that cannot be disturbed. These include, but are not limited to: (i)Large stands of trees; (ii)Rock outcroppings; (iii)Slopes greater than 60%. City council shall consider the potential negative impacts of the disturbance and regrading of critical slopes, and of resulting new slopes and/or retaining walls. City council may impose conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Conditions shall clearly specify the negative impacts that they will mitigate. Conditions may include, but are not limited to: (i)Compliance with the "Low Impact Development Standards" found in the City Standards and Design Manual. (ii)A limitation on retaining wall height, length, or use; (iii)Replacement of trees removed at up to three-to-one ratio; (iv)Habitat redevelopment; (v)An increase in storm water detention of up to 10% greater than that required by city development standards; (vi)Detailed site engineering plans to achieve increased slope stability, ground water recharge, and/or decrease in stormwater surface flow velocity; (vii)Limitation of the period of construction disturbance to a specific number of consecutive days; (viii)Requirement that reseeding occur in less days than otherwise required by City Code. Project Review and Analysis Each applicant for a critical slopes waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver, and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and intent of the Critical Slopes Regulations, as found within City Code Sec. 34-1120(b)(1). The applicant has provided information in the attached critical slopes waiver narrative (Attachment A) for Application Finding #1 and Finding #2. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(i) Application Finding #1 and Finding #2: Engineering Department: Based on the submitted materials and the applicant’s justifications, Engineering cannot recommend approval under either Finding #1 or Finding #2. Page 4 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope There is not enough information provided to show the layout as presented would be approvable or buildable. While there is considerable disturbance of onsite critical slopes currently proposed (41.7%), any approvable plan would likely necessitate a larger area of development or disturbance, and impact slopes further. However, if the Planning Commission decides to approve this waiver, based on the lack of satisfactory justification for Finding #1, and in accordance with the following City Code section: “No modification or waiver granted shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices.” City Engineering would recommend the following conditions: 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls, the first shall be “Initial/Preliminary Controls” and outfall construction, and the second shall include the establishment of sediment traps and conveyances. The sequence shall dictate that no disturbance of the slopes can occur, other than to facilitate trap/conveyance construction, until after the establishment of the trap, conveyances and permanent outfall (until Stage/Phase III). 2) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 3) Any disturbance occurring outside of conveyances to the trap, in either sequence or space, planned or unforeseen, shall be immediately stabilized with sod (for pervious areas, utilities should have other “same day stabilization”. 4) The proposed trail shall be a non-erodible surface (asphalt/concrete or similar) and provisions shall be made in the stormwater management plan to ensure runoff from the trail is conveyed in a non-erosive manner, and concentrated flows shall not be discharged above slopes, or flow along the toe of slopes, on or offsite the property. Environmental Sustainability Division: The site currently is predominantly forested and has significant tree canopy coverage (including on the critical slope areas), approximately 44% (or 4.95 acres) of which is proposed to be converted to impervious surfaces. As a result, the site will produce significantly more stormwater runoff in the post-development condition. Given that Moores Creek has water quality and quantity challenges and is an impaired waterway, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate water quality and quantity treatment into the site design. The PUD Development Plan and Preliminary BMP/Stormwater Management Plan (part of the “Supplemental Information”) submitted by the applicant indicates that approximately 73% of the required phosphorus/water quality reduction is proposed to be accomplished on- site, which is recognized by the Environmental Sustainability Division as commendable. In accordance with Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2 of the Charlottesville Standards and Design Manual, “Private site development projects may utilize nutrient credit purchasing for water quality credits in accordance with current VA DEQ policy, although it is strongly encouraged, and preferred, to utilize on-site systems that offer a true value to the local environment. Local Page 5 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope nutrient banks should be considered first.” If not managed properly on site, this additional stormwater will leave the site with increased velocity and have the potential to cause increased pollutant loading and erosion and sedimentation in Moores Creek. These are negative impacts contemplated in City Code Section 34-1120(b)(1)(b),(c), (d). The Critical Slopes Exhibit provided by the applicant depicts the extent of existing critical slopes and the proposed disturbances. The Exhibit does not depict areas of critical slopes in excess of 60%, which are specifically called out per Section 34-1120(6)(e)(iii) as particularly sensitive and important. Additionally, although a Tree Survey is provided by the applicant in the “Supplemental Information”, it is unclear the extent to which existing trees will be impacted by the proposed disturbance of the critical slopes. As such, areas of critical slopes in excess of 60% and existing trees to be removed from the critical slopes areas proposed to be disturbed should be depicted on the Critical Slope Exhibit. This will allow City staff to better analyze the impacts of the proposed disturbance. To mitigate for the loss of existing trees from the critical slope areas proposed to be disturbed, habitat redevelopment should be completed, in the form of plantings of locally native tree species in accordance with City Code Section 34-1120(6)(e)(iii) and (iv). Recommended Condition for PC to consider: Trees removed from areas of critical slope(s) shall be replaced within those areas, at a three-to- one ratio (“Habitat Replacement Trees”). The Habitat Replacement Trees shall be locally native tree species appropriate for the site conditions. No tree(s) planted in any area(s) that contain buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, or other built improvements shall be counted as any Habitat Replacement Tree(s). The specific number and species of Habitat Replacement Trees will be determined by the applicant and the City based on available space and site conditions, and the size, location and species of all Habitat Replacement Trees shall be specified within the landscaping plan required by Sections §§34-861 et seq. of the Charlottesville City Code, as amended. Planning Department: The General Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject properties to be Low Density Residential land use with a DUA of fifteen (15) or under. The proposed development will have a DUA of approximately fifteen (15) and preserve close to five acres as Open Space. To achieve this level of open space and stay at the fifteen DUA called for in the Comprehensive Plan, the development needs to be clustered and will impact Critical Slopes some of the critical slopes to the south and west of the site. The majority of the proposed buildings, parking, and infrastructure are outside the critical slopes areas. The majority of impacts to the critical slopes comes from two (2) proposed roads, Page 6 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope six (6) townhomes, two (2) of the multifamily units, and the nature trail. Although not shown, any BMP or stormwater system will also impact critical slopes within the limits of disturbance. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as overall building arrangement, offsite parking, density, or housing affordability. The site layout of the currently proposed development is dependent on approval of the previously noted rezoning application by City Council. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(ii) Application Finding #2 : Because the area could be developed, by-right, on the existing lot or record, staff determines findings ii are not applicable. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following when making a recommendation to City Council: Purpose and Intent of the Critical Slope Provisions The purpose and intent of the critical slope provisions in Section 34-1120(b)(1) are to protect topographic features whose disturbance may cause negative impacts including: Location of public improvements. The current configuration of the development limits the impact to critical slopes when it comes to building location, but does impact critical slopes when it comes to public improvements such as roads and trails. Loss of tree canopy and wildlife habitat that contribute to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community. If the corresponding rezoning application is approved by City Council, a majority of the trees on site will be lost during development. The only forested area to be preserved will be to the south and west of the property. At this stage it is not posable to compare the proposed development to a by-right one, even a by-right development would most likely require a Critical Slope Waiver. Recommended Conditions Staff has no recommendations for conditions related to this project. Suggested Motions Page 7 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope 1. I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 18A025000, as requested, with no reservations or conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) 2. I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 18A025000, as requested, with conditions, based on a finding that [reference at least one]:  The public benefits of allowing the disturbance outweigh the benefits afforded by the existing undisturbed critical slope, per Section 34-1120(b)(6)(d)(i)  Due to unusual physical conditions, or the existing development of the property, compliance with the City’s critical slopes regulations would prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use or development of the property, per Section 34- 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii) Recommended Conditions: 1. Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls, the first shall be “Initial/Preliminary Controls” and outfall construction, and the second shall include the establishment of sediment traps and conveyances. The sequence shall dictate that no disturbance of the slopes can occur, other than to facilitate trap/conveyance construction, until after the establishment of the trap, conveyances and permanent outfall (until Stage/Phase III). 2. “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 3. Any disturbance occurring outside of conveyances to the trap, in either sequence or space, planned or unforeseen, shall be immediately stabilized with sod (for pervious areas, utilities should have other “same day stabilization”. 4. The proposed trail shall be a non-erodible surface (asphalt/concrete or similar) and provisions shall be made in the stormwater management plan to ensure runoff from the trail is conveyed in a non-erosive manner, and concentrated flows shall not be discharged above slopes, or flow along the toe of slopes, on or offsite the property. Page 8 of 9 P20-0079 240 Stribling Avenue Critical Slope 5. Trees removed from areas of critical slope(s) shall be replaced within those areas, at a three-to-one ratio (“Habitat Replacement Trees”). 6. The Habitat Replacement Trees shall be locally native tree species appropriate for the site conditions. 7. No tree(s) planted in any area(s) that contain buildings, parking lots, sidewalks, or other built improvements shall be counted as any Habitat Replacement Tree(s). 8. The specific number and species of Habitat Replacement Trees will be determined by the applicant and the City based on available space and site conditions, and the size, location and species of all Habitat Replacement Trees shall be specified within the landscaping plan required by Sections §§34-861 et seq. of the Charlottesville City Code, as amended. 3. I move to recommend denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 18A025000. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Critical Slope Exhibit C. Link to 240 Stribling PUD Rezoning Staff Report https://www.charlottesville.gov/Calendar.aspx?EID=1569&month=9&year=2021&day=14& calType=0 Page 9 of 9 Attachment A City of Charlottesville CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER REQUEST SUPPLEMENT Please review city zoning ordinance section 34-1120(b) “Critical Slopes” and submit a completed Waiver Application Form, Critical Slopes Waiver Request Supplement and a Critical Slope Exhibit*. Applicant: Southern Development Property Owner: Carrsgrove Properties Project Description: What are you proposing to do on this site? Improvements to the vacant parcel to provide 170 housing units as well as supporting road and utility infrastructure. Existing Conditions: This parcel is undeveloped and primarily wooded. Total Site Area: 11.373 Parcel area. 9.23 Acres disturbed area. Zoning (if applying for rezoning-please note existing and intended change): Current Zoning is R1/R2. Proposed PUD. Percentage of Area that is made up of critical slopes - meets criteria set forth in Sec. 34-1120(b)(2) Definition of critical slope: greater than or equal to 25% slopes and a) a portion of the slope has a horizontal run of greater than twenty (20) feet and its area is six thousand (6,000) square feet or greater; and b) a portion of the slope is within two hundred (200) feet of any waterway: Total Critical Slope Area: The site area is 11.373 acres. There are 1.63 acres of critical slopes located on site, or 14.3% of the site area. An additional 0.17 acre of critical slopes are located off-site for a total of 1.80 acres of critical slopes. Critical Slope Area Disturbed: ___ acres of the total critical slope area identified above will be disturbed, or 41.7 0.75 ___ % of the total critical slope area. Proposed critical slope area to be disturbed is ___ 6.6 % of the site area. *Critical Slope Exhibit: Survey indicating location and area of critical slopes and what portions of critical slopes are proposed to be disturbed. Survey should be prepared, sealed, signed and dated by a professional engineer or land surveyor licensed to practice within the Commonwealth of Virginia. Attachment A This application should be used to explain how the proposed project meets some or all of the requirements as described in Section 34-1120(6) “Modification or waiver.” The applicant is expected to address finding #1 and/or finding #2 and justify the finding by utilizing the “critical slope provisions” as a guide. Completing this application will help staff make their recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. City Council may grant a modification or waiver, upon making one or more of the following findings: Finding #1: The public benefits of allowing disturbance of critical slope outweigh the public benefits of the undisturbed slope( public benefits include, but are not limited to, stormwater and erosion control that maintains the stability of the property and/or the quality of adjacent or environmentally sensitive areas; groundwater recharge; reduced stormwater velocity; minimization of impervious surfaces; and stabilization of otherwise unstable slopes) This project provides thoughtful design to minimize critical slopes disturbance, ________________________________________________________________________ while providing the necessary infrastructure to support up to 170 housing units. ________________________________________________________________________ 2.35 acres of conservation/tree preservation dedication is being proposed to ________________________________________________________________________ ensure a portion of the site maintains its wooded character. Additionally, nearly ________________________________________________________________________ all of the site's stormwater quality treatment is being provided on site through the ________________________________________________________________________ use of bio-retention facilities. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Finding #2. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions, or existing development of a property, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use, reuse or redevelopment of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. The subject parcel is situated on a steep grade. In order to provide roads that ________________________________________________________________________ provide access through the site and other infrastructure with slopes that comply ________________________________________________________________________ with City standards, a portion of the slopes must be impacted. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Please address how Finding #1 and/or Finding #2 will be met utilizing the “critical slope provisions” noted below. 1. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features. Erosion and sediment control measures will be employed as necessary to ________________________________________________________________________ protect undisturbed areas during construction. Down hill structural practices, ________________________________________________________________________ silt fence, sediment traps and inlet protection will capture sediment. Attachment A ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts are limited by the detention of site ________________________________________________________________________ runoff within proposed bio-retention and underground storage facilities. 2.35 ________________________________________________________________________ acres of preserved woods are being proposed as well to help minimize ________________________________________________________________________ offsite impacts. E&SC measures will be employed to ensure adjacent ________________________________________________________________________ properties are not impacted by stormwater runoff during construction. 3. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. Wetland disturbance is not proposed. Stream disturbance is limited to only ________________________________________________________________________ the point of outfall. Applicable ACOE permits will be obtained for the limited ________________________________________________________________________ outfall disturbance. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. Detention is being provided through the use of proposed bioretention and ________________________________________________________________________ underground storage facilities which limits the volumetric flow rate and velocity of ________________________________________________________________________ stormwater runoff which discharges from the site. Outlet protection will be placed ________________________________________________________________________ at the site's outfall as an energy dissipater to protect against erosive flow. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. Decreased groundwater recharge is being mitigated by the proposed ________________________________________________________________________ bioertention facilities which promote infiltration. 2.35 acres of proposed tree ________________________________________________________________________ conservation area will also help to mitigate decreased groundwater ________________________________________________________________________ recharge. ________________________________________________________________________ 6. Loss of natural or topographic features that contribute substantially to the natural beauty and visual quality of the community such as loss of tree canopy, forested areas and wildlife habitat. An arterial trail is being proposed, located within the 2.35 acre tree preservation area ________________________________________________________________________ to provide improved access to the natural features at the extremities of the site. ________________________________________________________________________ Removal of trees has been minimized. Disturbance within the 100-year flood plain is ________________________________________________________________________ limited to only the installation of the stormsewer outfall pipe. ________________________________________________________________________ Please list all attachments that should be viewed as support to the above explanations. Critical Slopes Exhibit ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Attachment A  2345646789 4 3379865449  47 5  446 9 3484 479 57954745 476 564969498794479859647985559 5 76674564495433 79644594744  4 646 34798 765375795543 47 556 449453759549 8749536479 579 5 55 4 447679654485798 7644349  2494   3759   2345649 7443 763794  746493 2359946! 496"4495796# $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   %9879446! 496"4495796#  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   Attachment B VARIABLE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE MO RG DISTURBED CRITICAL SLOPES STRIBLINHGR/W (SEE NOTE #11) AN CO WIDT 8'' W UR T AVENUE SHED CONC. S EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (34-1120(b 4'' W S 5 S 51 S EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPES PER ORD. (29-3) S OHU 520 505 500 5 0 W 49 5 W 4W9 0 510 475 48 S W 0 48 515 W 5 0 47 46 46 455 W S W 45 S S 0 S 51 5 8'' W 450 4'' W C&G S 45 SAN 0 40 39 395 S EXISTING 0 40 41 43 41 W 5 OHU 42 S 42 S 0 43 CRITICAL SLOPES 5 0 44 SAN 5 44 0 5 485 W 5 0 AS DEFINED BY SAN 5 SAN W 505 S ORD. (29-3). 500 EXISTING CRITICAL D 49 WIRE FENCE 49 D SLOPES AS DEFINED 480 51 5 SHED 0 BY ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)). S 5 0 C&G 47 400 470 VARIA SANITARY SEWER 4'' W EASEMENT STRIBIDTH R/W (S D.B. 380 PG. 553 BLE W 465 WIDTH UNSPECIF LING 5 0 50 46 W AVENE NOTE #11 0 W 455 SAN 50 S E S SAN UE U S SAN 450 OH S 40 ZONE AE ZONE X 5 5 5 ) 49 44 (29-3) EXISTING CRITICAL 0 CRITICAL SLOPE REFERS TO THE PORTION OF A LOT THAT HAS A GRADE IN EXCESS OF S SLOPES AS DEFINED BY 44 5 40 TWENTY-FIVE (25) PERCENT. INCLUDES SLOPES AS DEFINED BY CHAPTER 34, ZONING ORDINANCE. 490 ORD. (34-1120(b)(2)). 43 0 430 395 485 2.26 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 1.25 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE S 5 S 0.60 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 42 420 (34-1120(b)(2)) 480 395 415 N SA 475 410 DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% U 40 OR GREATER AND: OH 470 S 0 A. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE HAS A HORIZONTAL RUN OF GREATER THAN TWENTY (20) FEET AND ITS' TOTAL AREA IS SIX THOUSAND (6,000) SQUARE FEET OR GREATER; AND 465 SAN S SAN B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY S SAN S SAN SSAN AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY 420 THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 460 43 42 44 435 0 SANITARY SEWER 5 1.63 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 0.17 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE OFF SITE 455 45 445 0 EASEMENT 0.75 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0.30 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE 0 D.B. 298 PG. 416 WIDTH UNSPECIFIED NOTE: THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE U PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE OH SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 27 FOR DETAILS. ENERGY DISSIPATER OUTLET SHALL NOT RELEASE FLOW ABOVE CRITICAL SLOPES. CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT - ZONING & SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SCALE 1"=80' 83 240 STRIBLING AVENUE - APRIL 28, 2020 NAD 0 80' 160' REVISED: JUNE 11, 2021 Work Session with the Planning Commission September 14, 2021 Work Session Date/Time • September 14, 2021 • 5:30 PM, on Zoom • Planning Commissioners and panelists received a meeting link. Other attendees can register to join here. Purpose • During this agenda item during the Planning Commission’s monthly meeting, the Cville Plans Together team will present the Implementation Chapter for Planning Commission input. Comments on other chapters are also welcome at this time. Agenda 1. Brief Overview of Implementation Chapter and other Major Chapter Revisions since May 2021 2. Planning Commission Discussion Materials • The revised draft chapters and related documents will be available here approximately one week before the meeting, no later than the morning of Wednesday, September 8. Documents will include: o Overview o Topic-Specific Chapters o Implementation Chapter 1 Planning Commission Work Session March 30, 2021 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Commissioner Russell, Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Palmer, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Heaton Staff Present: Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Joe Rice, Brenda Kelley, Patrick Cory, Matt Alfele, Carrie Rainey, Lisa Robertson The Chairman called the work session to order at 5:30 PM. 1. Draft Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan Chapters Jennifer Koch, Cville Plans Together – This is the first draft of the Future Land Use Map. There are going to be revisions and refinements as we move forward. We’ve already identified some potential things that we might need to update. Since we met on February 23rd, we’ve refined the original land use framework that we shared with you the last time we met. We have drafted the future land use map we will be discussing tonight. We met with the project steering committee on March 8th. We talked with them about this land use framework. We did get some additional comments. We had a really good discussion with the steering committee. We put some of the comments on the slide for you to read. The steering committee wants to see a clearer role for Economic Development related to land use, recognition of urban agriculture, food justice, and food access. There was a discussion about protecting vulnerable communities from unattended consequences of this plan or other pieces of the land use plan. On the framework, we talked about the different locations in the scaling of nodes and corridors. We talked about the need for identifying places for potential denser land uses. We also wanted to focus on improving multi-modal access and safety in those areas instead of focusing development there. There was also discussion about the potential for organic node development as opposed to defining specific nodes for development. We also talked about land use issues related to industrial uses as well as uses along the river in protecting the river. At the end, we also talked about engagement. At the request of one steering committee member, who represents CADRE, we met with that group. We gave an overview of the land use framework. They raised some issues that were similar to what we heard from the steering committee. Outside of the land use map, we have also been working on revisions to the chapters of the comprehensive plan. We have sent some initial revisions to staff for their input. We got comments back at the end of last week. We’re working through revisions to those chapters this week based on the comments we have received. We’re starting mostly from the 2018 drafts on those chapters. We asked staff to help get those up to date and refine the goals and strategies in those chapters but also to provide thoughts related to implementation such as timeframes, responsible parties, and measures of success for each kind of action. As we move forward, we will use that to create the implementation chapter of the plan. We talked with you about the land use objectives and we got your feedback on those. We also got some feedback from the steering committee. We have updated those a bit and have refined them. We also made some small adjustments to the existing conditions maps. We haven’t included those maps in this presentation set. We’re using them as we refine the land use map. You can see here our refined land use framework, which builds on what we talked about last time to make a more detailed framework that we base the land use map on. Ron Sessoms – I did want to provide an update to some of the other components of the future land use map that we have updated based on the conversations with you, CADRE, and the steering committee. We heard a lot of good feedback, particularly regarding the future land use planning objectives that you see before you. The last 1 time we met, we had 5 objectives. Since that time, we have updated them and we are now up to 9. This is a list of objectives as we think about the future land use planning and making sure that we’re encompassing these big ideas as we move forward. Point 5 – Maximizing access to public open space. We also included schools. We heard a lot about making sure that we provide density and access to school. We thought that was something important to add to our list. Point 6 – We included this objective in our last presentation. We did add in UVA. They’re an important community institution. We wanted to recognize that importance as we think about planning particularly around the University. Keeping in the urban ring, the area right outside the city that lies within the county, has an important contextual relationship with the city. Point 7 – We heard a lot about making sure that we touch on the city’s climate goals to reduce greenhouse emissions by 45% over the next 20 years. We can do that through some of the planning instruments that we have for our use. One of those is to increase access to transit. We want to make sure that we call that out as a specific planning objective. Point 8 – Natural and cultural resources. We want to make sure we respect the natural environment. Charlottesville is a historic, culturally rich community. We want to make sure we recognize that as part of our planning objectives. Point 9 – At the last meeting, we talked about housing. We also want to make sure we talk holistically about economic development in the city and economic sustainability. We added a ninth point to ensure long term economic sustainability to the city by planning for a wide range of commercial land uses and making sure that we’re not focused on just housing, which is a very important component. We’re also addressing the need for economic development. Chairman Mitchell – With number 8, that is where we talk about, not just the cultural resources but we talk about the environment as well. Is that your intent? Mr. Sessoms –Yes. Chairman Mitchell – I would like for us to be very intentional when we talk about preserving the environment. When staff writes a staff report on a project we’re considering, one of the things that staff will point out and will take into account the need to preserve and enhance the environment. I want us to be intentional in the comp plan. When staff writes their report, one of the bullet points that a developer needs to think about, especially with critical slopes, is protecting and preserving that critical slope and protecting the waterways. Preserve and protect and enhance would add value to this point. I want to make certain that we are very intentional and the developers know that when they’re submitting a site plan to staff, they need to protect the slopes and waterways. Mr. Sessoms – With each one of these planning objectives, we will be sure to include sections in the comprehensive plan that explicitly covers these objectives in much more detail. We can have that as a resource as we move into the future and as we start thinking about implementation of some of these future land uses. At the last meeting, we had a discussion about how the future land use plan should be illustrated. We have two options. One is a parcel based approach. The other would be a land use gradient approach. The parcel based approach is very similar to what was developed in 2013. We have crisp lines between different land uses based on parcels. The land use gradient approach would be more of a ‘fuzzy’ boundary. There are no hard edges. It wouldn’t be defined by parcels. It allows for flexibility in the future. The lines are not as crisp as with a parcel based map. As part of the discussion, we were asked as the design team, to go and provide our professional judgement as to whether or not we should proceed with a parcel based approach or more of a land use gradient approach. We have come today to recommend a parcel based approach. Three key reasons why: 1. The zoning rewrite is part of the scope. Once we work through the future land use plan, we will move into the zoning 2 rewrite. The more consensus that we have on the future land use plan, the better we will be able to support that zoning rewrite. That’s something that is very important. 2. The gradient map does provide flexibility in zoning. However, it does offer less certainty to the community about what the future land use would be. What happens in those ‘fuzzy’ areas is undefined. That can cause confusion and uncertainty. The more we can be detailed now, the more it will help us in the long run. 3. We want to make sure that we strengthen the relationship between the future land use map and the zoning map. The implications are very different. Zoning is legal. Future land use map is more of a guiding document. We want to make sure they are inline as much as possible so we know what to expect moving forward and help in that zoning rewrite. From the last time that we spoke, we have taken our future land use framework diagram to develop that parcel based approach. We have taken that to define which parcels are located along corridors and what parcels are in nodes. As an approach to that along the corridors, we are thinking about those as more block based parcels. Those are the parcels immediately touching the corridor. Nodes can be larger, mixed use focus areas that can be where you have larger parcels that are not located adjacent to the corridor. Equity is something that we talked a lot about on the last call. We’re keeping the issue of equity in the forefront as we begin to develop the future land use map. We have developed some key points as to how we’re balancing equity considerations as part of the future land use map. We’re providing more housing opportunities, including affordable housing. We’re including those areas where people want to live. This would be places near parks, school, transit, city services, and employment centers. We can provide more affordable options to those community amenities. We can support community wealth building through enhanced home ownership opportunities. When we think of home ownership, we think of single-family housing. That is certainly not always the case. Home ownership can take the form in many housing types, including condos and townhouses. We can provide a variety of housing types that can accommodate a variety of budgets and allow more people to climb the economic latter of home ownership by providing more options. Increasing the availability of housing in single family neighborhoods that have historically exclusionary zoning while minimizing destructions and displacement pressures on low income neighborhoods. We heard a lot about how we can begin to provide equitable housing distribution throughout the city. Doing that through introducing a variety of housing types in different areas of the city that historically have not included that type of approach and displacement of low income neighborhoods. We can’t solve it all through the land use map. The land use map is not a ‘one all, be all.’ It does need to be taken into consideration to other programs and community ordinances that can promote the availability of affordable housing in the city. It is a balance between what we do in the plan and what we do in policy and how they work together to create the community of equal distribution and provide less pressure on low income neighborhoods. Commissioner Russell – I take pause with the phrase low income neighborhoods. What the consultant intends is something more like historically marginalized. Some of these neighborhoods are transitioning. I don’t know that low income applies and is the right adjective there. Mr. Sessoms – We’re looking beyond income. We’re looking at a variety of different neighborhood types that could include more diverse neighborhoods. We can definitely revise that to be more of the marginalized neighborhood definition. I think that would certainly be appropriate. Ms. Koch – We certainly do want to look at where there are lower wealth, lower income neighborhoods. There are historic African American neighborhoods that we would want to consider in that category. Mr. Sessoms – The diagram on the left is the future land use framework diagram. The framework is a guiding tool that we use to develop the future land use map. On the left is where we were in February. On the right is where we are now. The map on the right is much more detailed. It has evolved a bit since we last spoke in February. We have been working hard to make sure that we incorporate many of the ideas that we have been hearing from you, the steering committee, and CADRE. You can see on the map on the right that we have included neighborhood corridors. We heard a lot about, not just focusing on the major corridors, but to consider these more granular corridors that are located within existing neighborhoods. We pulled in a number of those 3 based upon feedback we heard and some analysis we have done in the city. We have also taken a closer look at the mixed use nodes. You can see those larger bubbles being larger concentrated nodes. We also have the smaller neighborhood nodes. We have switched some things around. For example, the Dairy Road gateway area. We have removed that node because of topographic issues. We have heard a lot about moving them and having more of a community node near the high school at Grove Road and Melbourne Road. We have moved that node over to that area. We had a spirited conversation about the Locust Avenue gateway node that we had shown last time. We went back and we re-evaluated that opportunity. We moved that small community node north towards North Avenue and the Park to get away from this high traffic intersection at 250 down to the southeast of town. We heard some concerns about calling this area Downtown Belmont. We have renamed it Belmont Center. Instead of thinking about this area as one big potential redevelopment area, we have added in two additional nodes along Carlton Road and Market Street and Carlton Avenue. We heard a lot about Avon Street. With Cherry Avenue, we were not showing the entire corridor as part of the plan. We did pull that in to have both nodes and corridor conditions in that area. With the Fry Springs Beach Club, we pulled that into the mix. We heard that there is some interest for some light commercial uses at that location. That could be the opportunity to create some neighborhood nodal activity at that location. We pulled in Ivy Road particularly because of the relationship to UVA. Ms. Koch – Did you mention the 5th Street corridor? Mr. Sessoms – We still have nodes at the end of 5th Street at the entrance way into 5th Street. Ms. Koch – In an earlier version of the map, there had been more of a larger node along 5th Street. Mr. Sessoms – I did want to point out the Rio Road area to the north. We looked at this area a little more closely, particularly with recommendations in the urban ring that is calling for mixed use development on the east side of Rio Road. We did signify that as an opportunity to create a neighborhood node at the city border on Rio Road to the north. Chairman Mitchell – We talked about Woolen Mills at the last meeting. Woolen Mills is not on the new map. What did we decide to do about that? Mr. Sessoms – Before we were showing some Woolen Mills node in this location. We thought it would be more appropriate to show there some light in the office uses on the south side of the railroad track and along Carlton Avenue. We thought that would be more appropriate for a node versus out in this residential area to the east. We went back and took a closer look at that. That nodal opportunity was moved further to the west to encompass more land that would be acceptable or amendable to some redevelopment opportunities. From that framework diagram, we began to develop the future land use map. There are 13 categories of land use. There are nine core developable land use categories that range from downtown core, urban mixed use, and urban mixed use corridor, industrial mixed use, neighborhood mixed use node, neighborhood mixed use corridor. In the three residential zones, they include low, medium, and high intensity residential area. In the 2018 plan, the Planning Commission developed seven. It was reduced down to six. We have about three core land uses more than what was shown in that plan. We are getting into a finer grain of detail with these recommendations. You can see the land use categories reflect the corridor and the nodal approach that we describe in the future land use framework. You can see how that land use framework is beginning to translate down into those future land use plan recommendations. This is an overview of what the future land use map looks like. You have the key/legend to the left with the map to the right. With the colors, you can begin to see how that framework has come alive through the future land use map. You can see the corridors extending from downtown reaching out to the Rt. 29 corridor. This is where we are. Ms. Koch – Emails were sent to the Planning Commission before this meeting with this information. This is the first draft of the land use map. We know that there are going to be things that will need to be adjusted. We have 4 noted a few things thanks to the Planning Commission and to some community members, who have noted it. There is an area where light industrial extends more than what we originally meant. We are showing proffered open spaces here. These are open spaces of private development. We thought it was important to show that. It really extends out the open space throughout the city. The method we used to do that was pulling from the parcel data that was available to us. It pulled in some areas that are actually developed not as open spaces. We’re going to be cleaning that up. There might be some questions about those. Mr. Sessoms – There was one comment about the area around Courthouse Square where there were some civic spaces that might need to be refined. We have 16,000 parcels. There will be some cleaning up with a few of those parcels as we get into the details of the plan. Downtown is the core of the city. It is one of the highest intensively developed areas of the city. It is the primary employment, civic, and commercial hub of the community. We see that being the case as we move forward. We want to make sure that we are providing places where people can live close to the amenities of the downtown, close to work, and all that the downtown has to offer. Downtown is in the center of the city. This downtown zone is very similar to what is shown in the current future land use map. The zoning map matches up quite well with that. We have kept that intact. We have not specified every building height within that district. There is going to be more detail moving forward particularly with the zoning piece of this. We do recognize the identified opportunities for building heights to range up to 10 stories. The former Landmark Hotel site is a 10 story building. These are all preliminary heights and preliminary ideas that we want to and will be working through as we have conversations with you and the public moving forward. That’s where we are. We have included a few images of the downtown core development. It is very urban in nature. We can have articulation in the buildings with the setbacks, other means and methods, and urban design tools that we have at our disposal to create a walkable, pedestrian friendly, good urban design district for the city. Commissioner Lahendro – The downtown core that you are showing on this map is very similar to the downtown historic district. You are showing 10 ten story heights. What is in here that references the historic districts and their overlays for your intense urban mix and residential and commercial uses, and not only the city recognized historic districts but also the federal and state registered historic districts? Even though the city doesn’t recognize them. There are opportunities provided by those historic districts. If they are delisted because of inappropriate development, it takes away economic opportunities for landowners in those districts. Will this make any reference to the historic districts? Mr. Sessoms – These were high level descriptions. One of our objectives is respecting those historic resources. With the building heights, we do say “range up to 10.” We know there is already a ten story building in downtown. We will have to have architectural control for these new developments that will control the character and the scale of these buildings. Thinking about setbacks, proximity to historic resources will have to be considered as part of those development opportunities. That’s something that is going to be very important moving forward, particularly in thinking about this range. Where we do have the lower heights within this district? There are potentials for the higher buildings like the Landmark Hotel. Those are things that we will have to consider beyond this future generalized land use map, the detail of scale, and how those buildings are articulated from an architectural point of view. That’s something we definitely will want to make sure we note and describe within the comprehensive plan regarding all of these districts. Commissioner Lahendro – I know all of those controls are in the background. I worry about the implication of what this might say to potential developers or landowners. This makes it look so easy. This is a concern that I have on many of these color-coded zones. Mr. Sessoms – That’s a good point and something that we’re making a note of that we want to address moving forward. It’s very important. Commissioner Russell – I would like to suggest and encourage different images. Those buildings connontate new development brought down in a cityscape than existing historic fabric. You mentioned that we want to 5 have good urban design. We have good urban design. We want to make sure we retain it and treat it appropriately. Mr. Sessoms – We will update those images so that it will be more contextual. These images don’t show any historic context and how you would treat building a taller building where you have lower buildings or historic context. We can pull more images and replace these images that could be more translatable. Ms. Koch – In the final comprehensive plan, there will be several more images for each of these different sections. We can think carefully with all of you about what those should be. Ms. Dowell – These images are not images of Charlottesville? I would make the recommendation that you find an example of images actually in Charlottesville. If that’s the context we are going for, I know that we have several new structures that have been placed in Charlottesville. I am sure that we can find something in the actual city that can be a reference map. Mr. Sessoms – I think that’s an excellent idea. We will definitely incorporate that. Commissioner Solla-Yates – In the 2013 land use key, we didn’t list heights. We were trying to be more specific in having any heights. That does have dangers and benefits. Mr. Sessoms – When we saw ten, it was a red flag for discussion to have around that. If we leave it without any height range, then we could get anything. Commissioner Lahendro – The Landmark Hotel is an anomaly within that historic district. It is the exception to the future rule. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We do have two historic, contributing structures in this zone designated downtown purple. The Wells Fargo Building at 10 stories and 500 Court Square, the Monticello Hotel, at 9 stories. I really do like the idea of adding actual pictures. I agree with Commissioner Russell that the look of these building look modern and consistent with the downtown and auto-oriented in terms of spaces. Mr. Sessoms – The next category would be our urban mixed use node. These are urban mixed use areas that support the city’s employment, commercial, housing needs at key locations. This will include the areas of the Strategic Investment Area (SIA) and properties along Rt. 29 and the Emmet Street corridor. At the Stonefield Development, north of the city’s border, there is a proposal to develop a 6 to 8 story mixed use residential building at that location. We are seeing some demand for more urban style development in that corridor. We think these areas can support apartments, office buildings, and ground floor aggregated uses. We did include a cap here at 10 stories. These areas are located in close proximity to downtown. With any tall buildings, we want to make sure there is a step down in relationship to the surrounding residential areas. If you were to get 1 to 2 tall buildings in the core of that purple area, we want to make sure we step down development to these neighborhoods. That’s also defined in the Strategic Investment Area Plan. We want to make sure we incorporate that into the comprehensive plan. You can see some urban style residential development with some activated ground uses, particularly at intersections. It can be continuous along the entire ground floor. These areas are urban in nature and provide opportunities for great public space amenities. There is a plaza space that is incorporated as part of a courtyard in a mixed use building. You would find this kind of development in the Strategic Investment Area. I did want to show the opportunity for more town-center type of development opportunities. US 29 could be a development type that would be appropriate in that area. Commissioner Solla-Yates – How do you see this and the last one different in terms of land use regulations? Mr. Sessoms – These areas would be lower in height. The range is up to ten stories. We think there is some opportunity for a more point tower condition. The Strategic Investment Area Master Plan identified that two block area had that opportunity for greater than six story height to create a point tower condition in that zone. The same could be true along US 29. I can see these areas being more of a master plan, multi parcel 6 development versus downtown, which may be parcel by parcel. These areas have a higher opportunity or chance of being developed in a multi parcel way versus some of the sites within downtown, which has implications as far as recommendations of how you treat those sites as far as development. Ms. Koch – They also present more of an opportunity for more of a residential development. They have mixed use, given that larger space. That could be a focus for additional residential development that might be more difficult to find space for in the urban corridor. Mr. Sessoms – Another issue that is different between these areas and downtown is parking. Parking is at a premium downtown. It will be at a premium in the Strategic Investment Area. Because we have these multi parcel opportunities, there is more opportunity to incorporate that better in the urban form to get some of that higher density development along US 29. We have these large commercial properties. That’s another difference between these areas and how we might approach the regulatory framework for these areas versus downtown. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Is now the time to talk about specific boundaries? This is a little too aggressive in places to go with the entire SIA. There is already built out low density, single-family homes within the SIA. This is everything west of 6th Street down to 4th Street. In the SIA plan, it is a little bit more nuanced than that. We are seeing the redevelopment being focused in sites like IX and stepping down. I think it would warrant a different designation than these. There are some places that it should be like the CFA Building, north of High Street. It is one of the biggest asphalt expanses in extremely prime land. I think it would be very appropriate to put that there. I would also say the scrap yard north of the railroad tracks. I would put as much density in there as we can to alleviate the pressure around the rest of the city. I also wonder why the 5th Street shopping center isn’t considered this category and the US 29 centers are. Next to Meadow Creek, we should be really careful on the Michie Drive Apartments in significantly upzoning that. That is a huge source of affordable housing in the city. If we’re putting development pressure on that, it would probably end poorly. Mr. Sessoms – I wrote down all of those locations so that I can go back and look at those areas. With the SIA, the plan was more nuanced. Some of these parcels are so large where they encompass some areas they might be calling for more density development. It might be good to go back and look at the categories overall to make sure that we’re capturing some of those nuances of the plan. Commissioner Stolzenberg – That makes sense and finding those subdivided and built out residential parcels that already exist. Another parcel I forgot to mention would be the Vinegar Hill Shopping Center. The Starr Hill Vision plan that was recently passed calls for that to be the most intensely developed part of that area as well as the city yard. Mr. Sessoms – We did include those under neighborhood mixed use. Commissioner Stolzenberg – My recommendation would be to bump those up, which I think was the intent of that plan. Commissioner Russell – I am not sure that they would all support the heights up to ten stories. I don’t know that height was expressed in Starr Hill. This is a place where that gradient would actually benefit the step down to the edges. I am not sure how it would necessarily differ from the zoning that is currently recommended in the mixed use corridor. Commissioner Stolzenberg – With the Vision Plan, I don’t believe that it specifies stories. It did say that it should be set back towards the residential part of Starr Hill. It should not be set back towards Ridge/McIntire. Specifically, the eastern and northern part of those parcels call for the most intense. Commissioner Lahendro – I would agree with Rory about the south end of 5th Street. You show it as a neighborhood mixed use corridor. It’s hard for me to picture that as serving the neighborhood more than the 7 automobile traffic coming off the interstate at that location. It seems more appropriate as an urban mixed use node. Mr. Sessoms – I think that would be a nice balance for some additional density down on the southern end. We have the corridors. These are areas that we want to encourage our intense mixed use development that link employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the city. The land uses may include apartments, office buildings, and ground floor activated uses. These heights may range from 5 to 8 stories, with the tallest buildings, potentially, near intersections. We want to have some variation in the urban form. You can see these here and how it reflects the framework diagram where we are showing Ivy Road around the University area, Preston Avenue from McIntire towards the triangle where we have the Dairy Central site, West Main Street with University development on the west side and an opportunity for more contextual urban mixed use on the east side that would fall within those story ranges, and JPA that connects UVA to the west where it meets Fontaine. We have identified that as an opportunity for urban mixed use. Further to the east, the High Street corridor from the downtown to the east towards River Road. Long Street that connects High Street towards Pantops and that mixed use area on the other side of the city border and the urban ring as primary locations for this urban mixed use. This area near the Edgehill Community near 250 north of the Harris Street corridor; we are envisioning this area to be medium density residential. We will be updating this. It looks out of place because it is out of place. It should be medium intensity residential around the school. We will correct that in the next iteration of the map. Commissioner Palmer – As I look at this and previous map around the UVA area, one thing we need to settle on would be showing UVA property versus UVA Foundation property. The maps should probably show UVA property as UVA property and treat Foundation properties as any other property that is privately owned. There are a lot of ways those could develop in the future; whether UVA would use it or the Foundation would develop it on their own under city codes and zoning. There is too much uncertainty there. I think it would be a better way of treating those properties. The one that caught my attention was Arlington Boulevard that will notch out at Milmont. I don’t know why that should be different. That’s a Foundation property. Mr. Sessoms – We went through the information we had and turned off the UVA Foundation in the dataset that we have. We can go back and make sure all of them were included. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to talk about JPA. We should really focus on jamming as much as we can to keep those students contained and stop them from spilling out into the rest of the city. It would be appropriate along JPA to go potentially higher to the urban mixed use node designation if it allows more. There are some tweaks to be made to those exact boundaries. Along Maury Avenue, we have that small shopping center that is designated as residential. There are some apartment buildings that could potentially be redeveloped that is also designated as high density residential. As you go north of JPA, all of those streets are small scale housing. The vast majority of them are occupied by students as rentals. Personally, I think it would be appropriate to look at redeveloping some of those into denser housing. Mr. Sessoms – Do you see most of this being urban mixed use node or just in some areas expanding beyond the corridor? Commissioner Stolzenberg – This is where I get a little confused about the distinction between node and corridor. A node is a place and corridor is along a road. More intense land uses associated with that node designation might be appropriate even though it is a corridor. Commissioner Solla-Yates – It is a corridor associated with UVA. There is a very high desire for development. Mr. Sessoms – We have the industrial mixed use areas. We heard in previous meetings that light industrial and light manufacturing has a place in the city. We should explore opportunities to keep that designation while allowing for opportunities for integral land uses. We have identified it as industrial mixed use designation, which include those employment areas. It allows for limited commercial and residential development with the 8 height no more than six stories in these districts. We are going back and refining boundaries of this zone. That Edgehill area to the north of the Harris Street industrial area should not be included as part of this. That is something that we are cleaning up. We did see these as light manufacturing and light industry areas of the city. There’s an opportunity in that. As these sites turn over, there’s opportunity for these sites to clean up over time. We heard a lot about environmental stewardship along the river in the comprehensive plan in our environmental considerations section. We will have a discussion about what that means along the river by pairing setbacks, building setbacks from the actual stream, stormwater management, and other environmental considerations that comes with redevelopment of these sites along the river. It is something that we are keeping in the forefront. The three images here are an example of ground floor maker space or light manufacturing space on the bottom floor with some office uses above. You can see how that becomes integrated together. You can have a mix of uses with light industrial uses where appropriate. Commissioner Russell – With that boundary cleanup, it would be good to see a little more green along the river there at River Road. That is a very sensitive area. Ms. Koch – It can also serve as a buffer between the light industrial and the river. Are there any spots you would identify as either existing or similar uses that you would want to see as retained as that? Chairman Mitchell – There are a number of intense development opportunities throughout the map. We need to make certain that we put a little green space or stream buffer in all of the intense areas that are adjacent to many of the waterways. Commissioner Russell – I wonder if there are any opportunities that align more with the county with more of those tech industries south of town. The boundaries are hard to delineate when driving through town. It seems that we run out of Charlottesville pretty quickly going down Avon Street. Commissioner Stolzenberg – These two areas are not the only industrial spaces. It’s a reduction from the 2013 future land use map. The Harris Street area also included some space on the west side of the tracks up by Rose Hill Drive and down by Preston Avenue along Albemarle Street. It is something to think about. There is the whole Carlton Avenue scrap yard, industrial space. The whole area where Carlton Views is now was designated industrial space. There are some little spaces in Belmont by Palatine Road, southwest of Belmont Park. There is a small half-block square of industrial. It is in the old plan. Maybe we should be intentional in trying to say that some of these areas change to envision non-industrial use. I think there’s a question over ‘light industrial.’ Would that be non-conforming? The lighter of ‘light industrial’ is much less impactful than the surrounding area. When you pull back that industrial area, I would also pull out the Allied Street-McIntire Plaza from industrial and turn that into a mixed use node. It’s no longer industrial. It’s mixed use residential and businesses. I would put that between the industrial areas at Birdwood Court. Mr. Sessoms – That would be, as shown here, the move forward. It would show the concrete plant as a non- conforming use. It would not be allowed to expand in the future. That’s how it would be treated. If somebody does come along to redevelop it, it would have to conform to this future land use guidance. Commissioner Solla-Yates – These are two of largest low lying developable areas. Low lying and large that can be developed to me suggest height. Six stories might be a little low; maybe think higher. Commissioner Russell – What would be developed at six stories? What would that look like? Mr. Sessoms – We are allowing for a limited residential, commercial uses. We want to make sure that we don’t characterize these areas as mixed use commercial districts like our urban mixed use and neighborhood mixed use areas. There could be a mix of uses supporting residential and commercial development in these locations. We talked about the light industrial, manufacturing maker space that could be compatible with a residential component. On the ground floor, we can have some of those maker space activities and allow for additional uses on top that are compatible with that maker space. That’s how you would get up to six stories, with a ground floor commercial/maker space with residential or commercial space above. 9 Chairman Mitchell – What is ‘maker space?’ Mr. Sessoms – It is more of a space where light assemblage happens with a technology component to it. It is below light manufacturing. A ‘maker space’ could be something where you make fencing or robotics or artistic functions like iron work. It’s not large scale manufacturing. It’s something that requires a smaller space that can accommodate a wide range of those types of ‘maker’ type activities. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The River Road area gives me some concern as well. It is important to have industrial space in the city to provide those blue collar jobs. That is all in the flood plain. That is the worst possible use to put in the flood plain. If we want to protect the Rivanna River and make it more accessible, I wonder if we want to encourage that redevelopment. There is an apartment building going in there now. Ms. Koch – We have thought about those issues as well. We have been hearing a lot about that. One thing that came up was allowing for redevelopment of this area and how these industrial areas can incorporate better technologies to protect the river as well. That would be one positive of that. As we look at refining that area, we can also look at creating some kind of buffer whether it is a green space or another type of use. We can take a look at what that might be. There is a planning effort going on of the river. We will want to see what is coming out of that effort as well. Commissioner Russell – Where does a small auto repair shop fall in this future land use map? Mr. Sessoms – That would be part of this light industrial area. It could be commercial. It could fall within those. We don’t have an explicit commercial future land use category. Commissioner Russell – It is definitely something to consider as we talk about vibrant mixed use instead of trying to relegate what is industrial versus what is a useful amenity for neighbors to have. I am thinking about little light industrial uses that are currently in Belmont or along East High. Ms. Koch – I think that is something we can consider when we’re looking at the next phase, when we’re reaching out to the community to get feedback on the next phase. That can be something we include under example uses under the different categories. People would be curious to know what would be allowed in those types of land uses. Commissioner Palmer – It is an interesting one, talking about the light industrial and manufacturing. I immediately think of the building where Firefly restaurant is at the corner of East Market and Carlton/Meade. It is an interesting building. It has a restaurant and catering. It has light industrial sign making. There’s a lot going on in there with a little of housing. Mr. Sessoms – That’s exactly the type of maker space that we will be talking about. Commissioner Palmer – If it gets that other designation on it, would that preclude businesses like that having a place in a redevelopment of a site like that? It’s going to be a dilemma. Mr. Sessoms – We had originally designated it as industrial mixed use. It does allow residential and commercial uses. Does it preclude that? If we flip it the other way around, we can start to get that wholesale redevelopment, residential, ground floor retail, exclusionary by right, industrial manufacturing uses that wouldn’t accommodate those types of uses you describe. We’re trying to balance the two so that we can create a vibrant district. The next category is neighborhood mixed use node. These are compact neighborhood centers. They emphasize a mix of land uses that range in smaller scale buildings that are compatible. The key word is compatible and having compatibility with surrounding low and medium intensity residential areas. In the bottom image, this is an example of a little neighborhood node. The buildings are oriented towards the street with the parking in the rear. The buildings are no more than four stories. Some of these include half a story but generally 3 to 4 stories. 10 It can even include some neighborhood services. When we talk about neighborhood mixed nodes, this is the type of rich, diverse type character where we’re thinking for these nodes. The range would be up to 4 stories. We don’t want to get too high where it comes out of context with these finer grain residential communities that surround many of these areas. We want to have density. We want to have appropriately scaled density. We’re thinking 3 to 4 stories is the benchmark and would be a good cap for these areas to protect that sense of scale and balance between these areas and adjacent residential communities. Chairman Mitchell – What are we thinking about with Belmont Park? It looks like you surrounded the park. Mr. Sessoms – We did hear the idea of having some mixed use opportunities around the park and making that a node. We colored that purple around the park. We saw having mixed uses around the park as an opportunity based on what heard. The majority of the area to the east is R-1. Chairman Mitchell – I wonder if we’re going to range it up to 4 stories if that makes sense for that area. Mr. Sessoms – Maybe a place where we don’t go to 4 stories. I will highlight that as an area of concern. Commissioner Russell – There is something to be said about places where infill is going to be more appropriate when there’s an existing building and to what degree is it even realistic to think about wholesale changes there. Commissioner Dowell – Can I get more clarification on the Fry Springs Beach Club? Mr. Sessoms – We learned from the planning staff that there has been some interest in the private development community to incorporate some commercial activity on that site, which will make it a node for the community. It won’t be a large one. Because of that interest in commercial activity on that site, we identified that as a potential internal node to that Fry Springs community at the Fry Springs Beach Club site that could be evolved over time. That’s probably not going to be something that happens overnight. It can, over time, evolve into a small node on that site. Chairman Mitchell – People are thinking of developing a greater hospitality offering on that site. Commissioner Dowell – Compared to the other nodes that are mentioned here, I figured that was private. You had to be a member to even exist in that node. Commissioner Solla-Yates – With heights, some of these should be way over four stories. Some should be under four stories. When we talked about this in 2018, we said five stories. It is arbitrary and doesn’t make much sense. If we could have some basis, that would be helpful. Mr. Sessoms – With four stories, we were thinking about how that contextually fits within the residential character and surface parking. The higher you go, the more surface parking you get. We start going up to four stories, with that residential and/or office component with commercial on the ground floor, you are going to need a lot of parking. That begins to effect the buffer between that site and existing residential. A lot of these sites are not that wide. They’re going to be able to accommodate a limited number of parking. As we go higher, you are going need to park all of the people that need to access that site. We kept it at four stories. It seems to be an appropriate scale that fits in the context. Up to four stories, there are some areas that we probably want to control. With four stories and the parking requirements and land use requirements, we thought four stories was a good stopping point for these neighborhood scales and mixed use nodes. Ms. Koch – Parking considerations are something that we will be talking about more. There could be changes potentially to that. We are trying to consider that. The other thing that we will be considering with these nodes and these corridors, is improving multi-nodal access. 11 Commissioner Lahendro – Around Belmont Park, these are very small parcels that are being pointed out as going up to four stories. Those parcels are surrounded by one story bungalows and very small residences. I am curious about the details of what that transition is like between these very narrow parcels and the one story bungalows surrounding your proposed use there. Mr. Sessoms – I do want to reiterate up to four stories. We’re not going to go wholesale four stories. The future land use map does keep it generalized with a much more detailed description than the three bullet points in front of you on this slide. Zoning will have plan control, setback, and step back controls, which is going to drive how high you could get on many of these sites. If you can’t meet the regulatory requirements set forth in the zoning code, you can’t go up to four stories. We will be using those regulatory constraints to help drive how high and how dense you can get on many of these sites. When we say range up to four stories and regulatory requirements to develop these sites, some of them certainly won’t go up to four stories. They will be lower than that. Commissioner Lahendro – There is going to be more description with your recommendations here that further defines the context for these recommendations. Mr. Sessoms – That’s correct. And even greater detail in the zoning code. Commissioner Lahendro – That’s good. The Planning Commission will need that kind of description detail in the future as they interpret the land use plan. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We have talked a lot about heights. I wonder if we should really be talking about setbacks and building to the front and side lot lines for these designations, especially those lots within the neighborhoods like Belmont Park and Grove Street. The height is going to be ‘touchy.’ Small setbacks make for good, walkable, urban places. I think some of these sites could potentially stand to add a 5th story or 4 over 1 to get that parking podium underneath so that it’s not on the surface. The main chunk of that parcel is in the flood plain. We need to give that some consideration. On the northwest corner of that, there is a big parcel that might be appropriate to go more intense given the context. With Grove Road, the parcels assigned to it could use some tweaking. Charlottesville High School has that big parking lot that could conceivably be redeveloped. I wonder if it makes sense to take a chunk of that in there as well. Looking at the map of housing assessments in that area, it seems like the ones on the east side of Melbourne Road are the cheapest houses. The ones to the west along Grove Road are some of the more expensive houses. Mr. Sessoms – We did take a look at the high school site. There is a large, high voltage power line corridor that extends along the entire parking lot. It is one that likely will not change. It’s a major line for utilities. We did not include any development on the school site. We can go back and look at Grove Road. We did include some higher density residential along Grove Road. We can look at it more closely to see if we can have higher intensity along that area, not just focused on the area to the east side of Melbourne. With the neighborhood corridors, you can see them here. They include University Avenue, along the UVA periphery on the east side, Cherry Avenue areas noted in the small area plan that can support mixed uses along Cherry Avenue, 5th Street – This might need to be more intense as a neighborhood mixed user corridor, Monticello Avenue – Maybe higher intensity use. Carlton Avenue, Monticello Road, Carlton Road, the transition area along Park Street from this higher density area along East High Street. Rugby Road, Rose Hill Drive – Some opportunities for some small scale. Rio Road mirroring what is proposed on the east side of the road with the county onto the west side so that we can get a balanced corridor along Rio Road. That could provide some neighborhood services for the Greenbrier community to the north. Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridors are walkable, mixed use areas that will support residential districts. We’re envisioning these corridors to include small multi-unit buildings and support work opportunities. In the bottom 12 right picture, you can see there is small retail and/or office space on the ground floor. It allows for some residential. You can live above where you work as an opportunity. The building heights along these corridors can range up to four stories with three stories along constrained sites. In looking at these corridors, some of these sites are quite narrow. Those narrow areas are not as high. Some areas are going to be up to 2 or 3 stories because of requirements for parking, setbacks, and buffers to adjacent residential uses. Any districts that want to allow neighborhood service and commercial convenience uses, particularly near key intersections, this is allowed the length of the corridor. We can’t get retail everywhere. If we can get it at the corners and strategically located along the corridors, that would promote a good, walkable, and friendly environment. You can see this is a very organic, urban form that can begin to take place. You can see some of that 3 story type development that could occur along these corridors. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Why not five stories? We had them at five stories in 2018. Mr. Sessoms – We want to think about context and neighborhood context. With the parcel development potential, we have specified 3 to 4 stories because of that reason. We want to make sure these neighborhood mixed use corridors that serve the community are contextual to the community that they serve. We have limited those height ranges to 3 to 4 stories. Chairman Mitchell – Commissioner Solla-Yates, are you asking why not five stories at all? Commissioner Solla-Yates – I am asking why none of them could be five stories. What is the public harm? Mr. Sessoms – There’s no public harm. Our recommendation from an urban design/form contextual point of view would be to have them range up to four stories, three stories with constrained sites. We can look at some areas where it may be appropriate to go up to five stories, particularly those areas where we have wider parcels. We also can take into consideration shading and building adjacent to residential areas. When we did the future land use framework for West Main Street, there was a lot of concern from the community about looming buildings next to adjacent residential areas. When we start suggesting these lower heights in the fabric of these communities, we just want to be careful on how tall we get and making sure the public is comfortable giving them a height that the public will be comfortable with and an increased density and increased services within these communities. Chairman Mitchell – One example I would add is Rose Hill Drive. Mr. Sessoms – High intensity residential are areas that primarily have existing major apartment complexes on them. There are some other areas that could support higher intensity residential that are highlighted here. These will primarily be residential focused developments that range up to 4 stories within these areas. They can accommodate some ground floor uses at select locations. Where we have major apartment complexes, we want to keep them and have opportunities, if we were to intensify in density, they can redevelop that. We retain that primary residential function on these sites. There are areas that we have identified as new opportunities. We have done that as well. With the Harris Street corridor, we did contain the future light industrial mixed use area to the east side of the railroad tracks. We reclaimed a lot of the area that has some intermittent industrial, residential uses on the west side of the railroad tracks for those residential mixed use opportunities. Commissioner Lahendro – I would recommend that the images shown here are aggressively modern. I would recommend being a little more careful with the selected images. I liked Commissioner Dowell’s recommendation that they be of Charlottesville and making sure they’re traditional buildings that can be four stories tall that don’t have to be so aggressively modern. Mr. Sessoms – That’s a good idea. People can relate to the images and understand exactly what we’re proposing. It makes the presentation more contextual to people. 13 Commissioner Russell – I don’t think you have a viable high intensity residential zone down at the end of East Market. What you might be trying to capture is the apartments that are maybe on county land. I think what you’re showing is single family homes. Commissioner Solla-Yates – It was five stories in the previous process. If we can’t do five stories for health and safety, that is understood. If we can, that would help. Mr. Sessoms – We can look at the high intensity residential for the stories here and come back with a refined recommendation. For the apartments at four stories, I think we can go up to five with those without a big issue. Commissioner Solla-Yates – There is a loss of continuity along Madison/14th Street. It looks like we’re slicing it up. Why? Mr. Sessoms – These are existing apartment complexes in this area to the west of Barracks Road. In our future land use map, we have this as medium intensity residential. There are homes within much of this area. We can go back and look at the continuity of this. It would read stronger if there was continuity of these high intensity areas. We can certainly go back and look at how the continuity of that district evolves where we are showing this high intensity residential. There could be some opportunities to expand that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would second that. Along Grady west of 14th Street, some of those might look like houses externally. They’re almost all student housing. I think it would be very appropriate to add that. I would also add University Circle as a mix. There are some pretty high intensity apartments along there. The ones that are not are some of the most expensive homes in the city. It would be appropriate to subdivide if that was the best use. Commissioner Heaton – I had a question about the Court Square Apartments across from the Courthouse. That’s a ten story building. Is that only that plot? You’re not going to change anything adjacent to that lot? Mr. Sessoms – Some of the buildings were a loss. Ms. Koch had touched on the issue with the common area designation covering up the parcel underneath. We’re showing the common spaces on the map because we want to show the continuity of the green spaces within the city including public and semi-public and private open spaces. The parcel inadvertently showed the entire parcel as green. That’s one of the things we will be going back to look at and making sure that we have properly shown all of those land uses on the map and we’re not covering anything with the park layer. Commissioner Heaton – Is that building technically going to be noncompliant with the map? Ms. Koch – Does that building fall within the downtown designation that we showed first? Mr. Sessoms – It does fall within the High Street corridor or downtown, which does go up to ten stories. We will fix all of those open space issues in the next iteration. With Medium Intensity Residential, these are beginning to encompass many of those missing housing types including row houses, townhouses, multi-unit buildings, and small house size unit buildings that are compatible with adjacent low intensity neighborhoods. The height of these range up to 2.5 stories. That is a residential scale so that they fit within the context. Many of these areas are deep within existing neighborhoods. The community has concerns about the scale of development, particularly in the core of these neighborhoods where we’re showing this medium intensity residential. We can see some precedent images. There is not a lot of height but you can get a lot of units in it. Here are some examples of townhouses, quadplexes, and triplexes that are 2.5 stories tall. We thought that would be an appropriate height for this medium intensity residential development type. We have located them within proximity of open space so that we can get a little more density around these 14 open space opportunities. This would also include splits of existing single family. Along Locust Avenue, we’re not calling for the demolition of all of the existing housing along Locust Avenue. There is an opportunity to provide more units within those lots. There are many ways to approach to building in density within existing neighborhoods that do not require the demolition of existing residential structures. We want to keep that in mind as we see these medium intensity residential uses on the map. We are sensitive to that. We are providing opportunities for more housing units in these areas close to amenities and within existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Solla-Yates – This was a very big area of tension in the 2018 plan. We broke pretty evenly on this. I think there was one vote for four stories and the rest for three stories. We narrowly went with 4 stories for this group. I certainly see advantages to going lower. If you see strong health and safety arguments for going below three, I would like to hear them. Mr. Sessoms – We also want to make sure we are putting forth recommendations that can be digested by the community and what they’re willing to accept for infill development within these communities. Four stories is very tall. We are talking about some of these small lots deep within these existing neighborhoods. Two and a half stories is about the height of an existing two story house. That two and a half story building form can allow for that third floor use within it. Technically, we are about three stories on these uses. We can go back and take a look at that. We probably don’t want to go higher than three stories within these districts. Commissioner Dowell – Especially if we’re a medium intensity residential. I don’t see the need to why we would have the same height as our high intensity. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The existing R-1 height limit is 35 feet. We see around the city a lot single family detached houses going up as three stories. I see the argument for not going above that. 2.5 seems like a reduction. Are we requiring pitched roofs? Mr. Sessoms – That’s another reason why we went two and a half because of the pitched roof. Three stories flat roof with that 35 foot height, you get 3 stories and a flat roof. You don’t have enough height to get a true pitched roof. This is something that we can certainly go back and take a look at and evaluate the height here with the 2.5 versus 3 stories and pitched roof versus flat roof. Is there a particular appetite for pitched roof versus flat roof conditions in these existing residential neighborhoods? We thought they would want to be pitched roof. I don’t know if there’s any strong opinion one way or the other. Commissioner Russell – I think it is important to try to dis-incentivize speculative tear downs in not having a drastic height in some of these existing neighborhoods. I think that it would help not make that so appealing. Unless a neighborhood has an existing historic district overlay, it’s going to be ripe for tear downs to build density and may not result in affordability. We should try to discourage that. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I wonder if lower heights with more allowed on it encourages the tear down rather than using the available, open space on a parcel while maintaining and converting the existing unit. It reduces the development potential of the vacant land parcel. It means you would need to add extra space wherever the existing house is in order to make that. In general, I wonder if we could come up with incentives to save that existing house like the County is doing in Crozet for the middle density residential where they would give benefits if you saved or converted the existing structure. Commissioner Russell – We should definitely do that. Mr. Sessoms – The incentive program is a really good idea to help with that effort. Commissioner Lahendro – For the areas being shown here, the pitched roof is certainly the more predominant context for these areas. Mr. Sessoms – At 35 feet, you can’t get a true architecturally respondent pitched roof with 3 stories and 35 feet. 15 Ms. Creasy – The current zoning definition allows for you to take the middle portion of a pitched roof. That’s in the current code. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It is basically 3.5 stories as the limit right now. Ms. Creasy – If you had a very extreme pitch. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It does remind me of what we talked about last time with the topography of the area. There are some places around the city that modest houses have three stories because of extreme grade change. I don’t know how you codify that into something. It is something to think about. Mr. Sessoms – That’s something that will be accounted for in the zoning piece of this in how we handle the topography with height in making that correlation and having a regulatory framework. With Low Intensity Residential, all of the other parcels are existing residential, we want to explore a wide range of housing types in these districts including ADUs, splits of existing single-family homes, heights, and allowing organic, urban form in relation to having community services within the neighborhoods. We will have a discussion about opportunities for limited ground floor activating uses in these areas. We did some overlay comparison with the 2013 and 2017 plan. There are some similarities and differences particularly with intensity and where we are showing intensity within the map. With the urban ring, we want to contextualize what we are doing within the city with what is immediately outside the city. We are beginning to overlay that. 2. Public Comments Cecilia Mills – When I sent this out to my neighborhood, people were shocked. There needs to be better outreach so people know that this is coming. People shouldn’t feel like they’re going to be blindsided. The white participating dropped. Some of those nodes are in areas where traffic is already bad. I work in an office that used to be a house. I wish that you could turn those back into houses instead of offices. You’re proposing that things be torn down and turned into offices. That didn’t work. The Landmark is a joke in this town. Please take that out of any presentation you make again. I don’t understand how you split streets. I live on a 2 block long street. One block is medium density and the other block is low density. Lucy Midelfort – I am encouraged to hear about the ideas for incentivizing in keeping the current housing stock that we have here. I think single family housing is ripe for adding ADUs. Adding density is possible without incentivizing demolition. I was encouraged to hear that. Andrea Massey – We’re taking some steps forward to changing some racist policies and zoning in the past. There is still more to be done and clarified. I am speaking for the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition to say that you need to go further. With affordable housing, I am talking about affordable housing at 50% or below on AMI. The map looks almost the same for the past decades following the same segregation lines. The public deserves to know what will changes and where past racist changes will be upheld. I want to know when the changes are being if we get that change analysis. Will it increase density? Will it add more affordable housing? Will it preserve neighborhoods in danger of gentrification and displacement? I want to know why there was no upzoning in North Downtown and Greenbrier neighborhoods from the consultants. It is not equitable. How does the map protect predominantly black neighborhoods from more gentrification? How does it slow/stop displacement? Nancy Carpenter – I support what Andrea Massey was talking about. I have lived in the Rose Hill neighborhood. The plan appears to be halfway there. What we’re dealing with is the racist policies from 60 years ago and trying to fix it. You don’t want your children and grandchildren to be dealing with these same 16 massive headaches that you are dealing. Let’s not continue with a land use map with work done by community members and look at racial covenants that excluded black residents. It still looks the same. Ms. Massey is correct in having higher density in neighborhoods that were excluding a lot of opportunity for people. We have to be careful with the words used in this plan, the context, and the definitions. There is still a ways to go. I am looking forward to a robust public engagement now that perhaps some of the neighborhood associations can get back into this community engagement. Jake Gold – I want to thank the consultants for putting together this map. I want to speak in favor of the comments from previous commentators and Commissioner Stolzenberg about North Downtown and Greenbrier. The consultants made an explicit goal that we target exclusionary neighborhoods for density. North Downtown and Greenbrier are perfect candidates for that change. There was a huge number of racist covenants in the past. I would encourage the new map prioritize what the consultants call medium intensity development along the main roads and the interior for those neighborhoods. I would be eager to hear justification for keeping those areas low intensity. I don’t know if it makes sense that areas we would like to preserve as low intensity, low income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color, have the same zoning as Greenbrier and North Downtown furthers the goals of economic or racial justice. 3. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to comment on the low density. One of the failings of the 2017 map is that it focuses all of the development on historically marginalized areas and completely exempts the richest and historically segregated areas. I look at this assessment map, all of those bright, red areas in North Downtown and the Rugby Hills area, those are all kept as low density residential in this new map. For North Downtown, that really needs to go a lot higher. The infill potential is going to be limited by individually protected properties in historic districts. The medium density could go further significantly into Rugby Hills. The medium is basically what we said the low was in our old narrative or key. Rather than eliminating the triplexes, that’s where the federal requirements for accessible units kicks in. If we want to have senior housing, we really need to allow that 4th unit as well. I think we need to allow row homes. We keep talking about affordable home ownership particularly simple home ownership where you own the land too. If you want to have cheaper homes that you can buy, real homes is the only way to do it. I would like to see that medium density bumped up to your larger plexes. That is something we should be encouraging. Commissioner Russell – I do think that there is infill potential in the historic districts. That shouldn’t be written off. I think the concern for residents who find value in historic homes is preventing them from being demolished and the significance that they have in our community. The potential that they serve is the ability to subdivide. That’s not guaranteed if the zoning doesn’t incentivize demolitions. There is the role that some of our smaller housing stock does play in the affordable housing picture. We should find more ways to protect the existing housing stock that we have. Chairman Mitchell – I would like echo what Mr. Stolzenberg and Ms. Russell said. It goes back to my question about Belmont Park. I will talk about the low wealth/economic community that we need to worry about. A lot of the property that we live in is zoned R-1. As you begin to think about increasing our density, remember to bring to equity into the equation. How much of the black community in certain parts of the city are living in R-1 areas. We need to make sure we protect the home ownership and don’t make it possible for developers to buy them out and build up. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I do wanted to briefly talk about parking. A big part of the conversation in 2018 was parking. At that time, we were talking about different ways of encouraging shared parking instead of mandating everything be onsite in building concrete and steel. I would like to encourage that kind of thinking in 2021. We don’t need to be restricting our height thinking by parking. 17 Ms. Koch – Based on the discussion tonight, we’re going to take your comments and will be working on a revision of this map. We are working towards a larger community input on this map. We need to talk with NDS about the best steps for working with you all as part of this process. I wanted to share some thoughts on the community engagement. In this next phase of community engagement, once we have the final land use map and final chapters, we will be looking to share those pieces for community input. We’re going to be focusing on sharing that in a way that can be really easily understood by people, who aren’t used to looking at a 2D map of the city. We want to make sure it is clear what the comprehensive plan and land use map can mean for life in Charlottesville. We will be looking at distilling it and making clear what the purpose of our recommendations are and the potential impacts. We will be looking to get information from people and making sure they understand what we’re showing. Do they like the direction that it is heading? Does it support what they think is important for the future of Charlottesville? Trying to tie it back to those vision statements and working with people to craft those in November and December. We’re also working on being really intentional about who we reach out to for outreach. It is a citywide process. We know homeowners and developers are very interested in land use. We want to make sure recognizing that a large portion of the Charlottesville community is renters. We want to make sure they’re aware how land use could impact their experience in the city in a variety of ways. While this will be a citywide conversation, we want to focus our efforts in a few areas. One of those will be neighborhoods where we haven’t had a lot of participation previously. We want to look at neighborhoods that currently have small area plans or vision plans in place. We really want to talk with those communities that have traditionally been negatively impacted on land use decisions in the city, particularly communities of color as well as lower wealth and lower income communities in the city. As we move forward, we will be looking at virtual engagement efforts and popups, as we get closer to warmer weather. When we’re getting ready to roll this out, we would like to reach out to you all and have you help us connect to residents and business owners. We hope that you will want to stay involved with that. This slide speaks to the questions that Commissioner Dowell has had in the past wanting to know who we have heard from. The charts show two key demographics: race/ethnicity and annual house income. These are only for the surveys. We have done a lot of outreach that wasn’t in this survey. The orange bars are the census demographics for the city. The pink bars are the first survey. The blue bars are the more recent survey. You can see the different types of responses that we received compared to the census. We were happy to see some changes between our first and second survey as we look toward a closer balance in some of these areas. This information that we’re sharing in our summary after each set of meetings will tie closely to our strategies as we move towards our target. We want to make sure we’re reaching a representative group of the city, as many people as we can. Chairman Mitchell – Belmont was the biggest response group. Fry Springs’ response was not as robust as Belmont. I have seen that the African American engagement has dropped off a bit. It is still not awful. Ms. Koch – It actually picked up a bit between the first and second survey. Commissioner Dowell – I would be interested in the comparison of the demographics of who are participating now versus the demographics we got from the first time. I do see that we had more African Americans participate. I want to make sure that we are able to show the progress that we’re making this go around. Chairman Mitchell – The challenge that we had was with African American participation and younger people? Commissioner Dowell – Younger people, ethnicities, and people of color. Not only black people, but people of color in general had not chimed in. I think it would advantageous all of us to the city to show that progress. The next time we have this, it doesn’t take this long and it should not take as much effort to be able to extract the information we’re looking for. We already have it in writing and proof in graphics how to go about doing that. 4. Adjournment 18 The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 PM. 19