Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, December 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 D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) 1. Critical Slope Waiver Request – 1223 Harris Street 2. Zoning Text and Map Amendment Initiation - C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. Charlottesville Capital Improvement Program FY 2023-2027: Consideration of the proposed 5- year Capital Improvement Program in the areas of Affordable Housing, Education, Economic Development, Public Safety & Justice, Facilities Management, Transportation & Access, Parks & Recreation, and Technology Infrastructure. A copy of the proposed CIP is available for review at: https://www.charlottesville.gov/171/Budget-Work-Sessions Report prepared by Krisy Hammill, Office of Budget and Performance Management. 2. ZM21-00004 – Park Street Christian Church PUD – Piedmont Housing Alliance, in partnership with landowner Park Street Christian Church, have submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately seven (7) acres of land, including one lot identified within City tax records as 1200 Park Street, Tax Map and Parcel 470002120 (the “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Park Street and Cutler Lane and is accessible by driveway off Cutler Lane. The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and an approved PUD Development Plan. The Proffers include: (1) All residential units constructed on the site shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) accessible to residents with not more than 80% of the area median income with affordability provisions guaranteed through 30+ year deed restrictions; (2) the applicant shall remove vegetation to improve sight distances onto Cutler Lane; (3) the applicant shall dedicate pedestrian easements upon request of the City to provide access from the Subject Property to Park Street and the Rivanna Trail; and (4) the owner shall provide an ADA compliant pedestrian crossing at the corner of Park Street and Cutler Lane. The rezoning would create a PUD referred to as “Park Street Christian Church PUD” containing up to fifty (50) apartment units within two multifamily buildings at an approximate density of 7 dwelling units per acre (DUA), to be located northwest of the existing church and preschool buildings on the Subject Property. The new Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Higher-Intensity Residential (13+ units per lot) in this area. The PUD Development Plan proposes a development with the following unique characteristics and amenities: preservation of the existing church and childcare uses, limitation of residential uses to affordable housing for the elderly, pedestrian and trail connections to existing infrastructure, and a private access driveway with off- street parking. The Subject Property’s current R-1 zoning does not allow multifamily developments. The PUD Development Plan calls for disturbance of land within Critical Slopes area; this application also presents a request for a Critical Slopes Waiver per City Code Sec. 34-516(c). Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at https://www.charlottesville.gov/1077/Agendas-Minutes Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Dannan O’Connell by e-mail (oconnelld@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3991). 3. ZM21-00003 - MACAA PUD – Piedmont Housing Alliance, in partnership with landowners Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) and 1023 Park Street LLC, have submitted an application seeking a rezoning of approximately nine (9) acres of land, including multiple lots identified within City tax records as Tax Map and Parcel 470007100, 470011000 and 470008000 (collectively, “Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Park Street and the Route 250 Bypass and is accessible by the private lane Macaa Drive off Park Street. The application proposes to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and an approved PUD Development Plan. The Proffers include: (1) 80% of the residential units constructed on the site shall be Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs) accessible to residents with not more than 80% of the area median income with affordability provisions guaranteed through 30+ year deed restrictions; (2) the applicant shall construct road improvements at the intersection of Park Street and Davis Avenue, including realigning the entrance to the Subject Property with the intersection, removal of fencing and vegetation to improve sight distances, elimination of a driveway on TMP 470008000 accessing Park Street, installation of a curb island to prevent right turns exiting the Subject Property onto Park Street, and reconstruction of a high-visibility, ADA accessible crosswalk at the intersection; and (3) the applicant shall dedicate bicycle and pedestrian easements upon request of the City to provide access from the Subject Property to the US Route 29/250 Bypass multi-modal trail. The rezoning would create a PUD referred to as “MACAA PUD” containing up to ninety-five (95) residential units divided between townhomes, two-family, single-family, and multifamily buildings at an approximate density of 10 dwelling units per acre (DUA), along with 7,500 sq. ft. of non- residential daycare space and about 4.9 acres of preserved open space. The new Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for a Neighborhood Mixed-Use Node in this area. The PUD Development Plan proposes a development with the following unique characteristics and amenities: preservation of two (2) existing single-family homes off Park Street, limitation of non- residential uses to recreational and daycare facilities, preservation of existing historic gardens and open space on-site, pedestrian and trail connections to existing infrastructure, and a combination of public and private internal roadways with on street parking. The Subject Property’s current R-1 zoning does not allow townhouse or multifamily developments, while daycare facilities are only allowed with the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at https://www.charlottesville.gov/1077/Agendas-Minutes Persons interested in this Rezoning may contact NDS Planner Dannan O’Connell by e-mail (oconnelld@charlottesville.org ) or by telephone (434-970-3991). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday January 11, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday January 11, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - May 11, 2021, June 8, 2021, Meeting July 13, 2021, August 10, 2021, August 31, 2021, September 14, 2021, October 11, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Rivanna River Corridor Plan 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 –Flint Hill PUD, 1223 Harris Critical Slope Waiver – Azalea Springs Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass, 2005 JPA, 2116 Angus Road Future Entrance Corridor • 916 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) • 2005 JPA – New apartment building, 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 11/1/2021 TO 11/31/2021 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. Rugby Avenue Shared Use Path – November 29, 2021 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 108 Clarke Court Parking Lot – November 2, 2021 b. CRHA South First Street Phase I – October 25, 2021 4. Subdivision CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APPLICATION FOR A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER APPLICATION NUMBER: P21-0082 DATE OF MEETING: December 14, 2021 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: December 1, 2021 Applicant: C-Ville Business Park, LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Chris Virgilio Current Property Owner: C-Ville Business Park, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1221, 1223, and 1225 Harris Street Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 340090B00, 340090C00 and 34009100 (real estate taxes paid current – Sec. 34-12) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 1.12 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 0.285 acres | 26.3% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.221 acres | 77.6% of total critical slopes area on parcel Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Neighborhood Mixed Use Node Current Zoning Classification: IC - Industrial Corridor Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) C-Ville Business Park, LLC 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 three residential units. 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 portions of all proposed lots in the development Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 2,415 square feet or 28 percent of the site. The applicable definition of “critical slope” is as follows: Page 1 of 6 P21-0082 1223 Harris Street Critical Slope 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 6 P21-0082 1223 Harris Street 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 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; Page 3 of 6 P21-0082 1223 Harris Street Critical Slope (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 #2. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(i) Application Finding #1: Staff does not recommend a waiver on the basis of Finding 1 for this application. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(ii) Application Finding #2 : Engineering Department: The City Engineering Department’s comments on this application can be found in Attachment C. Page 4 of 6 P21-0082 1223 Harris Street Critical Slope “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.” Based on the submitted materials and the applicant’s justifications, engineering cannot recommend approval under either Finding #1 or Finding #2.The plan is not yet approvable, though still under development. City Engineering provides the following recommended conditions which have been selected for based on the design and review history of this project. Most are already incorporated into the design. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the project, the following should be considered for applicable conditions:” City Engineering recommends the following conditions: 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 3) At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes. Planning Department: The specific physical characteristics of the site meet the standards required in Finding #2. City Council previously granted the applicant a Special Use Permit for a project proposed to be located on the site that would disturb all of the parcels at 1223 and 1225 Harris Street. A strict application of the critical slope requirements would make it unlikely the applicant would be able to implement the plan previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. The site layout of the currently proposed development is consistent with the materials presented by the applicant when the parcels were granted an SUP by City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to grant the critical slope waiver on the basis that “due to unusual physical conditions, one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of such property.” Recommended Conditions 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed Page 5 of 6 P21-0082 1223 Harris Street Critical Slope traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 3) At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 340090B00, 340090C00 and 34009100, as requested, with the conditions listed in the staff report, 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) [Not Recommended] • 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] 2. “I move to recommend denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 340090B00, 340090C00 and 34009100. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Critical Slope Exhibit C. City Engineering Comments on the Proposed Application Page 6 of 6 Brian, In regards to providing an evaluation of the waiver in accordance with Sec. 34-1120 (6) (c): “The director shall provide the planning commission with an evaluation of the proposed modification or waiver that considers the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution in accordance with current provisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and the Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and, where applicable, the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code. The director may also consider other negative impacts of disturbance as defined in these critical slope provisions.” This project triggers the City of Charlottesville threshold for requiring both VESCH, and VSMP plans. Since this requires a full review for compliance from the City, and ultimate approval in order to receive a Land Disturbing Permit, the City will have control over assuring the project conforms to VESCH, VA SWM BMP, as well as Chapter 10 of the City Code. The project has received 3 review from the City PWE staff after having initial submittal rejected for review for not meeting minimal State Code standards for review. Each iteration has gotten progressively closer to meeting basic VSMP/VESC standards. An evaluation of negative impacts specifically provided in the critical slope provisions, while also taking into account the latest plan submittal follows: a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features./ b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant references ESC measures being implemented. These plans are under development. For such a small site, it is very complicated but the last review generated comments primarily about clarifying the sequence for constructability (clarity for contractor) as well as comments about the “SSF” being applied at the perimeter and limits of flow length to silt fence. This ESC scheme has progressed significantly and is near approvable. c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. There is a “conveyance” adjacent the site. It is not considered a natural channel. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. Discharges downstream of the site should remain at similar amounts due to VSMP compliance parameters. Since most outfalls are being “reused” , velocity will remain similar. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. There is no mitigation proposed for groundwater recharge. Existing slopes and impervious limit recharge opportunities in both existing and proposed conditions. f. 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. There was not mitigation addressed for loss of natural features. There are extremely limited natural features regarding canopy or habitat in existing conditions. In regards to providing a recommendation of the waiver, in accordance with Sec. 34-1120 (6) (d): “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.” Based on the submitted materials and the applicant’s justifications, engineering cannot recommend approval under either Finding #1 or Finding #2.The plan is not yet approvable, though still under development. City Engineering provides the following recommended conditions which have been selected for based on the design and review history of this project. Most are already incorporated into the design. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the project, the following should be considered for applicable conditions: 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. 3) At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: December 14, 2021 Project Planner: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner Date of Staff Report: December 1, 2021 Origin of Request: Ralph Brown et al Applicable City Code Provisions: Sec. 34-41 Initiation Process Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice require, the City Council may, by ordinance, amend, supplement, or change the city’s zoning district regulations, district boundaries, or zoning district classifications of property. Any such amendments may be initiated by: (1) Resolution of the City Council; or (2) Motion of the Planning Commission. (See City Code Sec. 34-41(a), which is based on Virginia Code Sec 15.2- 2286(a) (7)). Initiating, in this context, is the action by which Council or the Commission decides whether to begin a formal study on the proposal, or to decline the request. Discussion Request for the City to initiate the zoning text and map amendment process necessary to establish the C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District. The proposed district is approximately 0.9 acres, straddling 12th Street, NW, just north of East Rosser Avenue, and contains six (6) structures designed and constructed between 1947 and 1959 by the Reverend Charles H. Brown (1907-1996). The five (5) dwellings and the church represent a clustered example of the more than 70 local buildings attributed to Rev. Brown, who from the 1940s into the 1980s worked with the residents of predominantly African American neighborhoods to construct affordable homes and churches. All constructed of concrete block and sharing a simple, traditional design. The Historic Conservation District ordinance was adopted on March 16, 2009 to create a second, less stringent type of local historic district to supplement the existing Architectural Design Control (ADC) District. The ordinance was not applied to a specific area or neighborhood at the time it was adopted but was intended to be applied to specific areas in the future, if requested by neighborhood groups. This initiation request is meant to apply the ordinance to the specific area described, which requires a zoning text and map amendment with its own public hearing and notification process. CH Brown HC District - Initiation of ZTA and ZMA (Final Dec 1, 2021) 1 A Historic Conservation District is intended to protect the character and scale of a historic neighborhood through required review of proposed demolitions and new construction, without imposing excessive requirements on the current residents who may want to remodel their homes. Standard of Review If initiated, 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. City Code Sec. 34-42 In addition, Sec. 34-336 Establishment of, and additions to or deletions from, conservation districts outlines additional requirements to designate areas for inclusion within a historic conservation district: 1) Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) shall define, taking into consideration information that may be provided by neighborhood residents, the architectural character-defining features of the proposed conservation district. Those features would be referenced and reinforced when applying the conservation district design guidelines. 2) Prior to the adoption of any such ordinance, City Council shall consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the BAR as to the proposed designation. The Planning Commission and BAR shall address six specific criteria outlined in Sec. 34-336 in making their recommendations. Appropriate Motions Staff supports the request to initiate this zoning text and map amendment. The Planning Commission has the following options for moving forward: 1) Initiate the process by making a motion such as: “I move to initiate a proposed amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance and map: amending Article II, Division 5, Section 34-337 to add the C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District as a Historic Conservation Overlay District and amending the city’s zoning map to add the C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District as an overlay district zoning designation.” CH Brown HC District - Initiation of ZTA and ZMA (Final Dec 1, 2021) 2 or 2) Decline to initiate the process. (No motion is needed; if the Commission does not adopt a motion to initiate, then the proposal will not proceed.) Attachments: A. Zoning request letter, dated November 19, 2021, with attachments, including a map of the proposed district. CH Brown HC District - Initiation of ZTA and ZMA (Final Dec 1, 2021) 3 November 19, 2021 Planning Commissioners City of Charlottesville 605 East Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Planning Commissioners: The purpose of this letter is to seek your support for establishing a Historic Conservation Overlay District in a portion of the Venable neighborhood and, per Sec. 34-336, to initiate amendments to the city’s zoning ordinance and map to establish the “C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District.” The proposal for the historic conservation district is rooted in the work of a professional architectural study of the area undertaken for the city in 2020; the goals of the C.H. Brown legacy project; the support of the Venable Neighborhood Association Board; and general support from the neighbors living in the related properties. The proposed district encompasses six properties on Rosser Avenue East and on 12th street NW, which recently received honorary street designation as C.H. Brown Way. • 703 12th Street NW, residence constructed c. 1959 • 704 12th Street NW, residence constructed 1959 • 706 12th Street NW, residence constructed 1952 • 708 12th Street NW, residence constructed 1959 • 212 Rosser Avenue East, church constructed 1947 • 1201 Rosser Avenue East, residence constructed 1957 The church and the five dwellings within the proposed district were designed and constructed by the Reverend C.H. Brown. Charles Hunter Brown (1907-1996) was a building contractor and religious and community leader in Charlottesville. He provided affordable housing, employment and on-the-job training, social and spiritual relief for many in Charlottesville and Albemarle County during the 1940s through the early 1980s. He was a master builder who designed and constructed more than 50 residential and commercial structures as well as a dozen churches in Charlottesville and the surrounding counties. Much of his work was done for people without means of financing and with limited incomes, challenging C.H. Brown to provide his clients with the best work and the most for their money. His popularity as a builder grew as he would allow his customers to make a small down payment and would often finance the balance for them or even co-sign a note at the bank. (Please see the additional information about the C.H. Brown legacy project at https://www.chbrownchristiancenter.com/) C.H. Brown's first non-residential structure, the Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, is on the corner of 12th Street, NW and Rosser Avenue and is the heart of the proposed C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District. The city designated the church an Individually Protected Property in 2008. According to the Reconnaissance Architectural History Survey of the 10th and Page Neighborhood completed for the city in 2020, the church is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places both as a contributing structure to the potential 10th & Page Historic District and as an individual site due to its historic significance as an African American Church and close association with C.H. Brown, who not only built the church, but served as its pastor beginning in 1960. The five dwellings he constructed near the church share a similar character and scale. All are constructed of concrete block— one of Brown’s preferred building materials—and share a simple, traditional style. The five dwellings are also within the area surveyed in 2020 and were recommended as “contributing resources” for the potential National Register historic district, meaning they share historic characteristics with each other, have a relationship to the larger, proposed district, and retain integrity to their historic period. (The Virginia Department of Historic Resources survey information for the six properties is attached.) While representing only a fraction of C.H. Brown’s work, the church and the five residences create a cohesive district that, with local designation, will preserve his legacy and tell an important story about the history of Charlottesville. The Brown family and current neighbors would like to preserve and protect these related buildings through the oversight provided by the city’s Historic Conservation Overlay District designation. While the city may wish to pursue National Register listing for the broader 10th & Page Historic District, local designation as a district provides a reliable, legal basis for the continued protection of these six historic buildings. Based on the information provided in the 2020 survey, the support of the neighbors and the neighborhood board, and the work of the C.H. Brown legacy project, we propose and ask the city to initiate the process to establish the C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District. This letter constitutes that formal application and request. Thank you for your consideration, Ralph Brown Attachments: 1. Proposed district map 2. “FAQ” for historic district prepared for neighbors 3. Architectural survey forms Attachment 1 Map of proposed Historic Conservation District, identifying the six related properties Attachment 2. Questions and Answers about the Potential C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District What is a Historic Conservation District? A historic conservation district is a zoning designation for an area in the city with special historical significance. Buildings within a historic conservation district usually share a common historical theme: they may have a similar architectural style or represent an important aspect of the city’s history. Historic conservation districts are a zoning “overlay” and do not change the base zoning of the area; for example, historic residential areas would remain residential and historic commercial areas would remain commercial, etc. Why create a Historic Conservation District? Creating a historic conservation district provides official recognition for the historical importance of the buildings and landscapes within the district area. The city provides some oversight for proposed changes within a historic conservation district to ensure that changes are not disruptive to the area. What kind of oversight does the city provide for properties in a Historic Conservation District? Major changes to historic properties within the district—such as a proposal to demolish a historic building, construction a new building, or create a large building addition—would require a “certificate of appropriateness” from the city’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR). Minor changes—such as regular maintenance, work on the interior of the building, painting, etc.—do not require any certificate from the city. Historic conservation districts also have some design guidelines that are developed with input from residents of the district. Does the Venable neighborhood have other Historic Conservation Districts? Yes, the city designated a portion of the Rugby Road corridor as a historic conservation district in 2014. There are two other historic conservation districts in the city: one in the Martha Jefferson neighborhood and one in Woolen Mills. What is the process for creating a Historic Conservation District? There are several steps: 1) It’s important that the people who own property and live in the proposed district are generally supportive of the district designation. If people are not supportive, then the re-zoning would probably not be approved. 2) If people are supportive, then there would be a written survey of the properties with a description of the district’s historical significance. This survey report would be submitted to the city for review. 3) The city’s Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission would both review and vote on the proposal for the historic conservation district. Endorsement from the Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission makes final approval by City Council more likely. 4) City Council—which must approve all zoning changes in the city—would then vote on the designation of the historic conservation district. Why create a C.H. Brown Historic Conservation District? The Rev. Charles Hunter Brown was a building contractor and religious and community leader in Charlottesville. He provided affordable housing, employment and on-the-job training, social and spiritual relief for many in Charlottesville and Albemarle County, Virginia during the 1940s through the early 1980s. He was a master builder and constructed more than 50 residential and commercial structures as well as a dozen churches in Charlottesville and the surrounding counties. Rev. Brown's first non-residential structure, the Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, is on the corner of 12th Street, NW and Rosser Avenue. The city designated the church as an Individually Protected Property in 2008. It is surrounded by several of Rev. Brown's residential buildings that share a similar character and scale. Together, the church and houses create a cohesive district that help preserve the legacy of Rev. C.H. Brown and tell an important story about the history of Charlottesville. To learn more: About Rev. C.H. Brown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._H._Brown and https://www.chbrownchristiancenter.com/ About Historic Conservation Districts: https://library.municode.com/va/charlottesville/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH34ZO_ARTIIOVDI_DIV5HICOOV DI https://www.charlottesville.gov/264/Historic-Preservation-Design-Review Attachment 3. Survey Forms Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5740 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 703 12th Street NW Property Addresses Current - 703 12th Street NW County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is located on the west side of 12th Street NW, just north of Rosser Avenue East. It is sited on a slope that increases in elevation to the west. There is a concrete block retaining wall along the east property line. Two bushes flank the steps and sidewalk that lead to the house. There is a large tree in the southeast corner of the lot, with additional trees along the south property line. Along the north elevation of the house, there is an asphalt driveway with a low concrete block retaining wall along the north property line. The backyard is bounded by a tall wood fence. This property consists of a house. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to the Charlottesville City Property Records, this house was constructed in 1959 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). The house does not appear on Sanborn Maps (Sanborn Map Company 1950). According to aerial photographs, it does not appear that there have been any significant changes to this house since it was constructed (NETR 1968; City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This house was built by Reverend Charles H. Brown, who built several houses on this block after building the Holy Temple Church of God the Christ at the corner of 12th Street NW and Rosser Avenue East. According to personal interviews, this house may have been built by 1956 (Brennan 2012:13-14). This property retains good integrity of location and setting. The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship have been slightly compromised by replacement windows. This property retains good integrity of feeling and association. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP due to a lack of historical significance. Further research is recommended to study Reverend Brown’s construction portfolio to determine if his group of buildings may have historical significance. Additionally, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Reverend Charles H. Brown Builder Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1959 Date Source: Local Records May 21, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5740 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Excellent Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is constructed of concrete block and has a side-gabled roof that is covered with asphalt shingles. There is a concrete block exterior chimney in the center of the north elevation. The east-facing façade features a one-story, partial-width porch with a shed roof covered in asphalt shingles. The porch roof is supported by square wood columns, and the porch has wood railings, and is accessed via concrete steps with wood railings. There are two front-gabled dormers clad in vinyl on the east facade. The west (rear) elevation features a shed roof dormer and a one-story, full-width, shed-roof wing. It could not be determined if this wing is enclosed or an open porch (USGS 2016). Visible fenestration includes one-over-one, double-hung, vinyl windows with metal screens; a single-leaf wood door with a metal storm door; and a vinyl picture window flanked by one-over-one, double-hung, vinyl windows. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Exterior End Concrete Block Dormer Gable Vinyl No Data Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Porch Portico/Entry Porch Wood Square Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Windows Double-hung Vinyl No Data Roof Side Gable Asphalt No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5740 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed March 19, 2020. Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Brennan, Eryn 2012 Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5741 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 704 12th Street NW Property Addresses Current - 704 12th Street NW County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is located on the east side of 12th Street NW, just north of Rosser Avenue East. The house is set into a slope that descends to the east. A gravel parking area takes up much of the front yard and is likely shared with the church to the south. There are small bushes and trees in the front yard and the backyard is bordered by tall trees on adjacent lots. This property consists of a house. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to the Charlottesville City Property Records, this house was constructed in 1959 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). The house does not appear on Sanborn Maps (Sanborn Map Company 1950). According to aerial photographs, it does not appear that there have been any significant changes to this house since it was constructed (NETR 1968; City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This house was likely built by Reverend Charles H. Brown, who built several houses on this block after building the Holy Temple Church of God the Christ at the corner of 12th Street NW and Rosser Avenue East (Brennan 2012:13-14). This property retains good integrity of location and setting. The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has been slightly compromised by replacement windows. This property retains good integrity of feeling and association. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP due to a lack of historical significance. Further research is recommended to study Reverend Brown’s construction portfolio to determine if the group of buildings he constructed on this block may have historical significance. Additionally, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Reverend Charles H. Brown Builder Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1959 Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) May 21, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5741 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is constructed of concrete block and has a side-gabled roof that is covered with asphalt shingles. There is a brick interior chimney in the south half of the ridgeline. The west-facing façade features a shed roof portico with a concrete floor and wood columns, and is accessed by a concrete step. The north elevation has a secondary basement entrance surmounted by a shed roof asphalt- shingled awning. The east (rear) elevation features a small wood deck to the north of the elevation, accessed by wood stairs. Visible fenestration includes vinyl picture windows flanked by four-over-four, double-hung, wood windows; a single-leaf wood door with a metal and glass storm door; a nine-light metal window; a square wood casement window; and two-over-two, double-hung, vinyl windows. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Central Brick Strecther Bond Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Porch Portico/Entry Porch Wood Square Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Windows Double-hung Wood No Data Roof Side Gable Asphalt No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5741 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data March 19, 2020. Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Brennan, Eryn 2012 Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5743 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 706 12th Street NW Property Addresses Current - 706 12th Street NW County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is located on the east side of 12th Street NW, at its dead end north of Rosser Avenue East. The site slopes downward to the east. There is an asphalt parking pad in the southwest corner of the lot, next to a wood picket fence and a large tree. This lot is very deep and the backyard has several trees. This property consists of a house. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to the Charlottesville City Property Records, this house was constructed in 1952 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). The house does not appear on Sanborn Maps (Sanborn Map Company 1950). According to aerial photographs, it does not appear that there have been any significant changes to this house since it was constructed (NETR 1968; City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This house was built by and for Reverend Charles H. Brown, who built several houses on this block after building the Holy Temple Church of God the Christ at the corner of 12th Street NW and Rosser Avenue East. According to his daughter, this house was built to house their growing family and was the first house Brown built in the neighborhood. Brown ultimately built 150 homes and buildings in Charlottesville from the 1950s-1970s, in addition to his pastoral ministry at Holy Temple. In particular, Brown sold or rented his houses to African American families whose housing options were limited by finances and socially enforced residential segregation. He frequently used concrete block in his construction because it was cost efficient and sturdy, and due to his connections with the Allied Concrete Block Company; concrete block was not widely used in residential buildings in Charlottesville prior. This made his buildings much more affordable (Brennan 2012:13-15). This property retains good integrity of location and setting. The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has been slightly compromised by replacement windows. This property retains good integrity of feeling and association. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as potentially individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria B and C for its association with Reverend Charles H. Brown as both an important housing provider for African Americans and a significant builder of homes for African Americans. He also proliferated concrete blocks as a residential building material in Charlottesville. Further research is recommended to study Reverend Brown’s construction portfolio to determine if the group of buildings he constructed on this block may have historical significance. Additionally, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Potentially Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Reverend Charles H. Brown Builder Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling May 21, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5743 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1952 Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Architecture/Community Planning, Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-and-a-half-story house is constructed of concrete block and has a side-gabled roof that is covered in asphalt shingles. There is an interior brick chimney on the east roof slope near the ridgeline. The west-facing) facade features two front-gabled dormers that are clad in wood siding. The facade also features a partial-width, one-story, open porch with a shed roof supported by square wood columns and fluted wood columns on concrete piers. The main entrance is in the center of this facade. The east (rear) elevation has a partial-width wood deck accessed by wood stairs with wood railings. Visible fenestration includes six-over-six, double-hung, vinyl windows, some with metal screens; a metal sliding window; and a single-leaf wood door with a metal and glass storm door. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Central Brick Strecther Bond Dormer Gable Wood No Data Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Porch 1-Story Partial Width Wood Square Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Windows Double-hung Vinyl No Data Roof Side Gable Asphalt No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5743 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed March 19, 2020. Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Surveyor's NR Criteria Recommendations: B - Significant Individual from History, C - Distinctive Characteristics of Architecture/Construction Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Brennan, Eryn 2012 Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5744 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 708 12th Street NW Property Addresses Current - 708 12th Street NW County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This one-story house is located on the east side of 12th Street NW near the dead end. In front of this property, the street transitions from asphalt to gravel, as if it were a private driveway, and angles to the northeast. As a result, the parcel is almost trapezoidal. The site slopes downward to the east. There is a tree in the front yard and small bushes along the west-facing façade. Around the northwest corner of the house, there is a low timber retaining wall. There is a mature tree near the center of the north elevation and a gravel parking area to the rear of the house. This property consists of a house. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to the Charlottesville City Property Records, this house was constructed in 1959 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). According to city directories, it was indeed under construction that year (Hill Directory Co. 1959). Aerial photographs indicate that the house historically had a rear wing of some nature, but it may have been renovated or expanded slightly into the current deck c. 2018 (NETR 1968; City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This house was likely built by Reverend Charles H. Brown, who built several houses on this block after building the Holy Temple Church of God the Christ at the corner of 12th Street NW and Rosser Avenue East (Brennan 2012:13-14). As of 2012, the house was clad in vertical wood siding, which has since been replaced. Based on other houses on the block, siding likely covered up its original concrete block construction (Google 2012). This property retains good integrity of location. The integrity of setting has been slightly compromised by the multi-family residential development to the north, built by 1968 on previously undeveloped land (NETR 1968). The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has been compromised by replacement windows and siding, and minor alterations to the rear wing/deck. This property retains good integrity of feeling and association. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP due to a lack of historical significance. Further research is recommended to study Reverend Brown’s construction portfolio to determine if the group of buildings he constructed on this block may have historical significance. Additionally, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Reverend Charles H. Brown Builder Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1959 May 21, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5744 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-story house rests on a concrete block foundation, is clad in aluminum siding, and has a side-gabled roof that is covered with asphalt shingles. There are two interior concrete block and brick chimneys located on the ridgeline near the north and south ends. The west- facing facade has the main entrance in the center; it is likely but not confirmed that there was originally a small entry porch like the surrounding buildings. There is a one-story, partial-width wood deck on the rear (east) elevation with a shed roof that is supported by wood columns and has wood railings. Visible fenestration includes six-over-six, double-hung, vinyl windows; and a single-leaf wood door with nine lights. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Central Concrete Block Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Structural System and Not Visible Aluminum Siding Exterior Treatment Windows Double-hung Vinyl No Data Roof Side Gable Asphalt No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5744 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed March 19, 2020. Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Brennan, Eryn 2012 Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Google 2012 Streetview. Electronic document, http://maps.google.com, accessed March 30, 2020. Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5919 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location Church, 212 Rosser Avenue East Property Addresses Current - 212 Rosser Avenue East County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This church is located on the northeast corner of 12th Street NW and Rosser Avenue East. The site slopes downhill to the east and uphill to the north. At the east end of the south-facing façade, there is a paved area bordered by concrete block retaining walls, used for trash bins and to provide access to a basement entrance. To the north of the church, there is a gravel parking area shared with the adjacent house. There is a small shed to the northeast of the church and the east property line is bordered by a chain link fence. This property consists of a church and a shed. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to the Charlottesville City Property Records, this church was constructed in 1947 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). The church is depicted on the 1950 Sanborn Maps (Sanborn Map Company 1950). The plastic shed was added to the site c. 2009, likely replacing an earlier shed of a similar size (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This church was built by Reverend Charles H. Brown and designed to reflect the form, scale, and materials of the existing houses on Rosser Avenue East. Brown later built several houses on 12th Street NW, including his own at 706 12th Street NW. Brown ultimately built 150 homes and buildings in Charlottesville from the 1950s-1970s, in addition to his pastoral ministry at Holy Temple. In particular, Brown sold or rented his houses to African American families whose housing options were limited by finances and socially enforced residential segregation. He frequently used concrete block in his construction because it was cost efficient and sturdy, and due to his connections with the Allied Concrete Block Company; concrete block was not widely used in residential buildings in Charlottesville prior. This made his buildings much more affordable, including this church (Brennan 2012:13-15). This chapter of the Church of God in Christ was founded by Norton B. Wilder of Memphis, Tennessee, in 1946. Initially, services were held in a large green canvas tent on the current church site. Wilder contracted Brown to construct the church in 1947. When the building was complete, Brown was appointed pastor of the church (Brennan 2012:13-14). The congregation thrived in the 1960s and 1970s, serving as a community center for residents and African American students at the University of Virginia, as other social opportunities were rare. The church was also involved in a tutorial program for high school students in the 1960s. In 1974, Brown’s son John established a radio station inside the church, which may have been the first African American voice on local radio until it was shut down by the FCC in 1976. The church community has been impacted by increasing gentrification of the neighborhood, which has displaced nearby congregants due to a lack of affordability (Brennan 2012:16). This property retains good integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association. It also retains good integrity of design, materials, and workmanship has it largely retains its original materials. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as potentially individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the area of Religion as a significant African American church and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture as the first building constructed by Reverend Charles H. Brown. This property ignited his construction career and employed concrete block construction, thereby setting the standard for his body of work. Additionally, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource and one non-contributing secondary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Potentially Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Associate Property Associate Name Property Associate Role Reverend Charles H. Brown Builder May 22, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5919 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Religion Resource Type: Church/Chapel NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1947 Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Vernacular Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.5 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-story church has a partially exposed basement, is constructed of concrete block, and has a front gable roof covered with standing seam metal. The gable ends are stuccoed. There is an interior concrete block chimney near the center of the east elevation. On the south- facing façade, there is a partial-width, one-story, open porch. The porch rests on a concrete block foundation and has a front gable roof covered with standing seam metal that is supported by turned wood columns. The porch has turned wood railings and is accessed from the west by concrete block stairs with a wood railing. The façade has a basement entrance at the east end. The north elevation has a secondary entrance at grade and a basement entrance accessed by descending concrete steps. Visible fenestration includes a double-leaf wood door with a transom; a single-leaf steel door; a single-leaf wood door; a six-light metal window that is partially fixed and partially an awning window; fixed four-light metal windows; two-over-two, double-hung metal windows; and square metal windows of an unknown operation. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior End Concrete Block Porch 1-Story Partial Width Wood Turned Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Windows Double-hung Metal No Data Roof Front Gable Metal No Data Secondary Resource Information Secondary Resource #1 Resource Category: Religion Resource Type: Shed NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: ca 2009 Date Source: Map Historic Time Period: Post Cold War (1992 - Present) Historic Context(s): Religion Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: No discernible style Form: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: There is a one-story plastic shed to the north of the church. It rests on concrete blocks and has a flat roof and swing doors. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Foundation Piers Concrete No Data Structural System and Not Visible Plastic Panels Exterior Treatment Roof Flat Plastic No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5919 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed March 19, 2020. Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: Brennan, Eryn 2012 Religious Communities in Transition: Three African-American Churches in Preston Heights. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5920 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Property Information Property Names Property Evaluation Status Name Explanation Name Function/Location House, 1201 Rosser Avenue East Property Addresses Current - 1201 Rosser Avenue East County/Independent City(s): Charlottesville (Ind. City) Incorporated Town(s): No Data Zip Code(s): 22903 Magisterial District(s): No Data Tax Parcel(s): No Data USGS Quad(s): CHARLOTTESVILLE EAST Additional Property Information Architecture Setting: Urban Acreage: No Data Site Description: January 2020: This one-story house is located on the north side of Rosser Avenue East, near a dead end, at the corner of Rosser Avenue East and 12th Street NW. There are box hedges in the front of the property, and large trees dotted throughout the rear of the lot. The south and east edges of the property are bounded by concrete block retaining walls. The site slopes to the south, and the basement of the building is partially exposed. This property consists of a house. Surveyor Assessment: January 2020: According to City of Charlottesville Property Records, this house was constructed in 1957 (City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This is supported through aerial photographs, as the house does not appear on the 1950 Sanborn Map (Sanborn Map Company 1950; NETR 1963). The front porch was enclosed in the early 2000s but has since been opened (Google.com 2008; City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020). This property retains excellent integrity of location and setting. The integrity of design, materials, and workmanship have been mildly compromised by replacement windows and porch changes. This property retains excellent integrity of feeling and association. Overall, this property retains good integrity. This property is recommended as not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP due to a lack of historical significance. However, it is located in the potential 10th & Page Historic District, which is recommended as potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. Further study is recommended to determine if the 10th & Page Historic District is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A in the areas of Ethnic Heritage, Community Planning and Development, and Social History, and under Criterion C in the area of Architecture. This property includes one contributing primary resource. Surveyor Recommendation: Recommended Not Eligible Ownership Ownership Category Ownership Entity Private No Data Primary Resource Information Resource Category: Domestic Resource Type: Single Dwelling NR Resource Type: Building Date of Construction: 1957 Date Source: Local Records Historic Time Period: The New Dominion (1946 - 1991) Historic Context(s): Domestic Other ID Number: No Data Architectural Style: Vernacular Form: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 1 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5920 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Number of Stories: 1.0 Condition: Good Threats to Resource: None Known Architectural Description: January 2020: This one-story house sits on a concrete block foundation, is constructed of concrete block, and has a cross-gabled roof covered in asphalt shingles. There are two chimneys. One is an interior, concrete block chimney on the south roof slope near the ridgeline, and the other is an exterior, concrete block chimney on the west elevation at the north end. The south (front) facade features a partial-width, one-story, open porch with a front-gabled roof supported by square wood columns with wood railings. The porch is accessed via concrete steps with wood railings. On the west elevation, there is a one-story, shed roof wing at the south end, clad in asbestos siding. This shed roof wing connects to a gabled wing at the north end. The east elevation features a secondary basement entrance surmounted by a metal, shed roof awning. The north (rear) elevation includes a gable-ended extension clad in asbestos siding on the east end as well as an enclosed porch with a shed roof on the west end. Visible fenestration includes one-over-one, double-hung, vinyl windows; a single-leaf steel door; a single-leaf wood door with a diamond window, and a metal storm door; and one-over-one, double-hung, metal windows. Exterior Components Component Component Type Material Material Treatment Chimneys Interior Slope Concrete Block Chimneys Exterior End Concrete Block Foundation Solid/Continuous Concrete Block Structural System and Masonry Concrete Block Exterior Treatment Porch 1-Story Partial Width Wood Square Windows Double-hung Vinyl No Data Roof Cross Gable Asphalt No Data Secondary Resource Information Historic District Information Historic District Name: No Data Local Historic District Name: No Data Historic District Significance: No Data CRM Events Event Type: Survey:Phase I/Reconnaissance Project Review File Number: No Data Investigator: Erin Que Organization/Company: The 106 Group Ltd. Photographic Media: Digital Survey Date: 2/5/2020 Dhr Library Report Number: No Data Project Staff/Notes: Erin Que, Principal Investigator and Sr. Architectural Historian Holly Good, Architectural Historian Saleh Miller, Sr. Architectural Historian Project Bibliographic Information: City of Charlottesville GIS Viewer 2020 Property Record. Electronic document, http://gisweb.charlottesville.org/GisViewer/, accessed January 27, 2020. Hill Directory Co. 1931, 1940, 1950, 1959 Hill’s Charlottesville City Directory. Hill Directory Co., Inc., Publishers, Richmond, Virginia. National Environmental Title Research, LLC [NETR] 1963-2016 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed March 19, 2020. May 21, 2020 Page: 2 of 3 Virginia Department of Historic Resources DHR ID: 104-5920 Architectural Survey Form Other DHR ID: No Data Neighborhood Development Services 2012-2016 The 10th and Page Historic Survey. On file at the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Development Services, Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company 1907, 1913, 1920, 1929, 1950 Fire Insurance Map of Charlottesville, Virginia. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1994-2019 Historical Aerial Photograph, Charlottesville Independent City, Virginia. Electronic document, accessed on Google Earth, February 20, 2020. Bibliographic Information Bibliography: No Data Property Notes: No Data May 21, 2020 Page: 3 of 3 City of Charlottesville City Manager’s Office MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Krisy Hammill, Senior Budget and Management Analyst CC: Sam Sanders, Deputy City Manager Ashley Marshall, Deputy City Manager James Freas, Director, Neighborhood Development Services City Council DATE: December 6, 2021 SUBJECT: FY 2023 – 2027 Capital Improvement Program Draft Budget Presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration is a draft of FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The current draft CIP budget contains revenues and expenses totaling $25,202,907 in FY 2023, a decrease of 8.7% from the Adopted FY 2022 amount. The projected five-year total CIP budget is $158,607,072. The General Fund contribution to the CIP in FY 2023 is proposed to be $6,815,940 and the amount of revenue proposed to come from bond sales for FY 2023 is projected to be $18,084,467. The five-year total amount of revenue from bond sales is projected to be $123,129,356. This draft budget attempts to address the City’s growing capital needs and Council’s priorities. Significant revenue enhancements will be needed in order to make this plan affordable. A few notable highlights include: 1. Last year’s five-year plan included a $50M placeholder in FY 25 for the Schools Reconfiguration Project. This budget reflects a $25M increase for the school project which brings the placeholder total to $75M and moves the funding ahead to FY 24. 2. $23.25 million of the planned bond revenue represents bonds that were previously authorized for the West Main Street project ($18.25M) and the 7th Street Parking Garage ($5M) that have been reprogrammed to fund the School Reconfiguration project increase. 3. FY 27 reflects no additional bond revenue as it is anticipated that the City’s bond capacity will be exhausted by year 5 of this plan. 1 This draft budget is built based on what is currently known about the City’s total revenue and expenditure needs for FY 2023. As the FY 2023 budget development work continues, operational needs as well as capital needs will continue to be balanced with projected revenues and the five- year CIP will remain a work in progress until it is formally presented to City Council in March as part as the Proposed Budget. Additional Materials In preparation for the Public Hearing on December 14th, the following documents are being provided: Attachment I – FY 2023-2027 Draft Five-Year CIP Plan Attachment II – FY 2023-2027 Unfunded CIP Projects List Attachment III- New Request List Attachment IV - Commissioner Questions and Responses (Revised) Attachment V – FY 2023 CIP Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary (New) Most of this material is a duplicate of the material provided for the November 23rd work session. However, please note that Attachment III has been revised to include additional questions and responses and Attachment IV is a new document being provided for your review. 2 Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2023-2027 *red denotes an addition or a change from FY 22 plan Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Revenues Transfer from General Fund 6,880,841 6,737,940 7,549,378 6,580,400 6,476,400 6,481,098 33,825,216 Transfer from General Fund - Mall Vendor Fees 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 390,000 Contribution from Albemarle County (CATEC) 90,000 62,500 0 0 0 0 62,500 Contribution from Schools (Small Cap Program) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 PEG Fee Revenue 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 200,000 VDOT - Rev Share East High Signalization 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 2022 Bond Issue 19,823,072 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 2023 Bond Issue 0 18,084,467 0 0 0 0 18,084,467 CY 2024 Bond Issue 0 0 62,023,907 0 0 0 62,023,907 CY 2025 Bond Issue 0 0 0 9,885,491 0 0 9,885,491 CY 2026 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 9,885,491 0 9,885,491 CY 2027 Bond Issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bond Previously Authorized - West Main Street 0 18,250,000 0 0 18,250,000 Bond Previously Authorized - Parking Structure 0 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000 TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUES $27,611,913 $25,202,907 $93,141,285 $16,783,891 $16,679,891 $6,799,098 $158,607,072 Expenditures BONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Lump Sum to Schools (City Contribution) 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 561,000 5,361,000 City Schools HVAC Replacement 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 3,750,000 City Schools Priority Improvement Projects 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 0 0 0 2,500,000 Charlottesville High School Roof Replacement 120,000 1,200,000 0 0 0 0 1,200,000 Charlottesville City School Reconfiguration 0 2,500,000 72,500,000 0 0 0 75,000,000 SUBTOTAL $3,320,000 $6,900,000 $75,700,000 $1,950,000 $1,950,000 $1,311,000 $87,811,000 FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,492 1,045,491 1,045,491 1,045,098 5,227,063 City Facility HVAC Replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 City and Schools Solar PV Program 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 300,000 SUBTOTAL $1,370,491 1,370,491 1,370,492 1,370,491 1,370,491 $1,295,098 6,777,063 PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total General District Court 6,062,028 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Fire Apparatus 0 0 1,152,415 0 0 0 1,152,415 Replacement EMS Apparatus 377,553 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bypass Fire Station - Add'l Funding 1,206,976 0 0 0 0 1,206,976 DRAFT 1 11/23/2021 Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2023-2027 *red denotes an addition or a change from FY 22 plan Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 SUBTOTAL $6,439,581 $1,206,976 $1,152,415 $0 $0 $0 $2,359,391 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total New Sidewalks 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 Sidewalk Repair 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 2,000,000 SIA Immediate Implementation 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 800,000 Small Area Plans 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 400,000 Street Milling and Paving 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 5,750,000 Parking Structure 1,000,000 1,317,000 0 0 0 0 1,317,000 ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 0 960,000 Minor Bridge Repairs 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 0 900,000 Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks and Curbs 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 800,000 Traffic Signal Infrastructure Replacement 228,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 0 2,000,000 East High Street Signalization - VDOT Rev Share 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belmont Bridge - Local Match 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Market Street Garage Concrete Structural Repairs 683,000 0 0 0 0 683,000 SUBTOTAL $7,693,000 $5,215,000 $3,565,000 $3,565,000 $3,565,000 $0 $15,910,000 PARKS AND RECREATION Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total McIntire Park Drainage Corrections $0 $350,000 0 0 0 0 $350,000 Key Recreation Slate Roof Replacement $0 $42,000 $486,000 0 0 0 $528,000 SUBTOTAL $0 $392,000 $486,000 $0 $0 $0 $878,000 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Public Housing Redevelopment - (CRHA) 1,500,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 12,000,000 SUBTOTAL $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $12,000,000 TOTAL BONDABLE PROJECTS $20,323,072 $18,084,467 $85,273,907 $9,885,491 $9,885,491 $2,606,098 $125,735,454 NONBONDABLE PROJECTS EDUCATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total School Small Capital Improvements Program 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 800,000 SUBTOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $800,000 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year DRAFT 2 11/23/2021 Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2023-2027 *red denotes an addition or a change from FY 22 plan Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Economic Development Strategic Initiatives 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 600,000 SUBTOTAL $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $600,000 FACILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS 5 Year Project Total HVAC Contingency Fund - City Facilities 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 0 $125,000 HVAC Contingency Fund - School Facilities 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 0 $125,000 SUBTOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $0 $250,000 3,800 PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Police Mobile Data Terminals 195,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 75,000 0 210,000 Police Portable Radio Replacement 0 45,000 45,000 45,000 75,000 0 210,000 Fire Portable Radio Replacement 0 45,000 45,000 45,000 75,000 0 210,000 Sheriff Portable Radio Replacement 0 18,800 18,800 18,800 40,000 0 96,400 SUBTOTAL $195,000 $153,800 $153,800 $153,800 $265,000 $0 $726,400 TRANSPORTATION & ACCESS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total State Bridge and Highway Inspections 0 60,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 0 335,000 CAT Transit Bus Replacement Match 134,000 139,510 114,400 114,400 114,400 0 482,710 Intelligent Transportation System 185,000 150,000 150,000 185,000 185,000 0 670,000 City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements 50,000 100,000 137,800 150,000 150,000 0 537,800 Neighborhood Transportation Improvements 150,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 200,000 Bicycle Infrastructure 150,000 137,000 150,000 165,200 150,000 0 602,200 Right of Way Appurtenance 0 25,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 Traffic Sign Retro Reflective Compliance 100,000 75,000 100,000 0 0 0 175,000 ADA Ramp Corrections 0 134,930 138,978 0 0 0 273,908 Historic District and Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 SUBTOTAL $769,000 $921,440 $991,178 $864,600 $849,400 $0 $3,626,618 PARKS & RECREATION Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account 300,000 300,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 0 1,500,000 Parks and Schools Playground Renovations 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 0 448,000 Urban Tree Planting 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 300,000 Parkland and Trails Acquisition and Development 250,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 0 500,000 Refurbish Parks Restrooms 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 390,000 DRAFT 3 11/23/2021 Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2023-2027 *red denotes an addition or a change from FY 22 plan Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Total FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 Oakwood Cemetery Drainage and Road Issues 45,700 0 0 0 0 45,700 Hazard and Liability Ash Tree Removal 50,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 275,000 City/County - Ivy Creek Preservation Study 66,000 92,400 0 0 0 158,400 City/County - Darden Towe Ash Trees 26,500 0 0 0 0 26,500 SUBTOTAL $865,000 $1,028,200 $957,400 $865,000 $865,000 $78,000 $3,793,600 TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Communications Technology Account/Public Access 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 200,000 City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 1,000,000 SUBTOTAL $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $290,000 $40,000 $1,200,000 AFFORDABLE HOUSING Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 4,625,000 Supplemental Rental Assistance 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 4,500,000 Friendship Court Infrastructure Improvements 2,000,000 0 2,500,000 0 0 0 2,500,000 Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase 1 394,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase 2 750,000 2,500,000 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase 3 0 0 750,000 2,500,000 0 0 3,250,000 Friendship Court Redevelopment - Phase 4 0 0 0 2,250,000 2,250,000 4,500,000 SUBTOTAL $4,969,841 $4,325,000 $5,075,000 $4,325,000 $4,075,000 $4,075,000 $21,875,000 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS Adopted Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected 5 Year Project FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Total Home Energy Conservation Grant Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL NONBONDABLE PROJECTS $7,288,841 $7,118,440 $7,867,378 $6,898,400 $6,794,400 $4,193,000 $32,871,618 TOTAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES $27,611,913 $25,202,907 $93,141,285 $16,783,891 $16,679,891 $6,799,098 $158,607,072 Funding Gap $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cash Funding Gap $0 $0 $0 $0 -$2,606,098 DRAFT 4 11/23/2021 FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 - - Represents $18.25M previously authorized and unfunded in FY23 budget to be reallocated to the school reconfiguration West Main Streetscape Improvements 35,200,000 35,200,000 projecta and the amount of additional funding that was anticipated to be needed for later phases. Land Acquisition 15,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 25,000,000 Jefferson-Madison Regional Libarary Renovation 13,080,638 - - 13,080,638 Energy Savings Performance Contract 5,000,000 5,000,000 potential annual payback of $333k Awarded SGR funding $7,210,664. City Dairy Road over Route 250 Bridge Replacement 750,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 4,750,000 Appropriation requset next FY27 Request represents money required for Revenue Sharing Grant Match Funds 2,650,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,650,000 a match for 2029 funding/award, applied for in FY24. Projects TBD. City Schools Priority Improvement Projects - - 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 3,750,000 Requested to ensure all remaining elementary schools are addressed in the Modernization Program. Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation $1.8M in funding is currently available. 3,500,000 - - 3,500,000 Design to start soon. Planning on starting construction in FY'22. Stribling Avenue Sidewalk 500,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 2,800,000 Development Request. Does not meet CIty prioritization for recommended sidewalk project. Housing Rehabilitation 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,500,000 CHS Roof Replacement 2,300,000 2,300,000 Represents additional funding for an alternate scope of work beyond what is already is included in the CIP Street Milling and Paving 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,000,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in CIP. Undergrounding Overhead Private Utilities 2,000,000 2,000,000 PHA ‐ Gap Funding for MACAA Apartments 1,980,000 1,980,000 PHA ‐ Gap Funding for Park Street Christian Church/Hinton 1,950,000 1,950,000 Request postponed until the 2023 LIHTC Avenue United Methodist Church Apartments application Meadowcreek Valley Master Plan Implementation 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000 $600,000 needed to install stone dust trail at end of Michie Drive and stow mall bridges and to restore funding moved front VDOT grant for large bridge near north end New Sidewalks 600,000 300,000 300,000 1,200,000 Represents the difference between amount requested and amount proposed in CIP. Crow Recreation ADA Compliance 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000 Some items have been brought to compliance, but the facility is not within total compliance.. 1 11/23/2021 FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Meadow Creek Trail Connection from Michie to Greenbrier 750,000 750,000 Total project $2.55M with $1.8M in federal funds available Virginia Supportive Housing - Permanent Supportive 500,000 250,000 - - 750,000 Housing Project Onesty Youth Aquatic Play Features Replacement 712,000 - - - 712,000 Key Rec Center Restroom/Locker Room Renovations 600,000 - - - 600,000 LED Streetlight Conversion 50,000 275,000 275,000 600,000 Forest Hills Spray Pad Shade Structure 540,000 - - - 540,000 McIntire Park Master Plan Implementation 500,000 - 500,000 Meadowcreek Golf Course Cart Trail Paving 500,000 - - - 500,000 486,466 Represents the difference between amount Citywide ADA Improvements - Sidewalks & Curbs 230,512 124,729 131,225 requested and amount proposed in CIP. Avon Salt Barn 478,791 478,791 Project was previously partially funded but needs to be investigated further for possible change in scope. 456,500 - - 456,500 This is from Neighborhood Request. Does not Yorktown Drive Sidewalk meet CIty prioritization for recommended sidewalk project. Bicycle Infrastructure 400,000 - - 400,000 Parks and Recreation Lump Sum 400,000 - - - 400,000 Schools Small Cap Improvements 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 400,000 Advise returning this program to full funding, considering the amount of work that will be generated by current challenges to school infrastructure. Park Trails and Land Acquisitions 125,000 125,000 125,000 - 375,000 Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs 144,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 360,000 Sprayground Surface Renovations 354,000 - - - 354,000 Automation and Processing fo AP Invoices 46,690 244,001 25,133 315,824 Fire Bunker Gear (PPE) Replacement - - 300,000 - 300,000 Pulled the 300,000 from FY24 and moved it to FY25 to better allign with the first needed bulk replacement of ~100 sets of firefighter turnout gear. These funds presently reside in the operational budget. The goals over time has been to replace 20 sets per year x 5 years to get 100 sets (for the first set of gear), and the same process over the next 5 years (for the second set of gear). Moving to a CIP allotment on a five year interval will allow for the identified/specified amount of funds to replace half of the sets every five years. 2 11/23/2021 FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Fire Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) 300,000 300,000 Pulled the FY 25/26 allocation and added one Replacement single $300,000 alocation for FY27. Prior to the last replacement the FD recieved a regional grant with the county to replace all SCBA. To date there hasn't been a recurring CIP allottment for these scheduled replacements - they have relied on one-time allocations or grants in recent years. Applying the funds into the CIP marches out/plots out the replacement on a known schedule with funding specified/allocated for the recurring needs. Green Infrastructure Opportunities 150,000 75,000 75,000 - 300,000 Park Lighting Replacements 150,000 75,000 75,000 - 300,000 Still recommended by CPD for improving security at the parks. Washington Park Pool Shade Structure Replacement 250,000 - - 250,000 Bridge Inspections 242,274 - - 242,274 200,000 There is a list of properties in need of extensive repair as well as emergency Blight and Code Enforcement Fund 150,000 - 50,000 - situations which lead to inhabitable sites with out the repair. Note that these funds are recoverable. Meadowcreek Golf Course Bunker Renovations 200,000 - - - 200,000 SIA Implementation 100,000 50,000 50,000 200,000 Parks and Recreation Facility Security Upgrades 7 190,000 - - 190,000 Enhancements Parkland Acquistion Underserved Areas 80,000 100,000 180,000 Cedar Hill and Angus Road Fontaine Avenue Fire Station Alerting System 175,000 175,000 Matching funds from Dept. Of Historic Resources could be sought through application process. We have a number of districts awaiting survey and need funding to Historic Preservation Program - Historic Surveys 50,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 keep the program going. Please note that $50K in the current account was allocated by the city for a study of the downtown mall and can not be used for surveys Meadowcreek Golf Course Parking Lot Light Installation 150,000 - - 150,000 Meadowcreek Golf Course Tee Box Leveling 150,000 - - 150,000 Preston Corridor Study - leverage funding for Preston-Grady 150,000 150,000 Intersections Land Acquisition - CAT Park-n-Ride Hub 29N 145,685 145,685 4% match to leverage approximately $3.6M in federal and state funding. 3 11/23/2021 FY 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Program Unfunded List In Order of Amount Unfunded Project Title Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested 5 Year Total Notes/Comments FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 Forest Health Improvement Initiative 100,000 - - 100,000 Critically needed for ongoing treatment and removal of infected Ash trees in the City. Safe Routes to School - Prioritize projects, schematic 100,000 100,000 designs and cost estimates Skatepark Lighting 85,000 - - 85,000 The original project scope called for LED light fixtures and an initial cost estimate of $300,000. Staff has fundraised a total of $215,000 (which includes several grants) and would need to request $85,000 to fund this project. Citywide Tree Planting 25,000 25,000 25,000 75,000 Represents additional funding beyond what is already is included in the CIP Total for all Requests 97,470,405 12,161,415 13,003,358 2,472,000 1,725,000 126,832,178 4 11/23/2021 Summary of CIP New Requests FY 2023 Budget Development New Requests Added to Proposed CIP Draft Amount Amount Included Department Description Requested in CIP Draft Parks and Rec McIntire Park Drainage Issue $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Parks and Rec Key Recreation Center Slate Roof Replacement $ 528,000 $ 528,000 Parks and Rec Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Parks and Rec Oakwood Cemetery Drainage and Road Issues $ 45,700 $ 45,700 City/County ‐ Ivy Creek Preservation Project Study. City Share ‐ Parks and Rec $66k request in FY 23 and $92,400 in FY 27. $ 158,400 $ 158,400 City/County ‐ Darden Towe Park ‐ replace 125 diseased/hazard Parks and Rec Ash trees in parking lot $ 26,741 $ 26,500 Fire Bypass Fire Station ‐ Add'l Funding $ 1,206,976 $ 1,206,976 NDS Review of design guidelines for Historic District and Entrance Co $ 50,000 $ 50,000 HVAC Contingency Fund ‐ to establish a contingency for PW ‐ Facilities Maintenance emergencies $ 250,000 $ 50,000 PW ‐ Facilities Development Market Street Parking Garage Concrete Structural Repairs $ 683,000 $ 683,000 Hazard and Liability Ash Tree Removal ‐ $105k/yr, $525k five Parks and Rec year total $ 105,000 $ 50,000 Total $ 3,553,817 $ 3,298,576 New Requests Added to the Unfunded List Amount Department Description Requested Meadowcreek Trail Connection from Michie Drive to Greenbrier Elementary ‐ Total project $2.55M with $1.8M Parks and Rec Federal Funds $ 750,000 Land Acquistion of Parkland Underserved Areas ‐ $180k requested ‐ $80k inFY23 land and $100k in FY24 Playground Parks and Rec Equip ‐ Cedar Hill and Angus Road $ 180,000 Fire Fontaine Ave Fire Station ‐ Alerting System $ 175,000 Land Acquistion ‐ Transit Park‐n‐Ride Hub ‐ Transit Hub Park‐n‐ Ride ‐ Route 29 ‐ $3,642,135 total cost largely funded by state CAT and federal funds with an estimated 4% local match $ 145,685 Safe Routes to School ‐ funding 80% grant match to prioritize PW ‐ Engineering projects, schematic desings and cost estimates $ 100,000 Preston Corridor Study ‐ to leverage Smart Scale funding for Preston‐Grady Intersections ($7.7M) which would be available PW ‐ Engineering in FY26 $ 150,000 Undergrounding Overhead Private Utilities ‐ these funds would be used to help leverage State funding for larger transportation projects. Undergrounding is typically viewed as a betterment PW ‐ Engineering and can not be covered using the State funding. $ 2,000,000 Energy Savings Performance Contract ‐ $5M investment PW ‐ Environmental requested in FY23 with an annual payoff of $333,333. $ 5,000,000 LED Streetlight Conversion ‐ $600k total ($50k in FY23, $275k in FY24, $275k in FY25). Streetlight conversion is identified as the PW ‐ Environmental primary strategy for lighting in the Climate Action Plan. $ 50,000 PW ‐ Facilities Development Avon Salt Barn ‐Add'l funding to cover new project budget $ 478,791 CHS Roof Replacement ‐ Add'l Funds requested ‐ change in scope ‐ Facilities Development recommends pursuing the alternative scope originally presented ‐ a complete reroof valued at $3.5M. This roof would have a life span of up to 30 years versus 10 ‐15 year life under original scope, and would allow for installation of a larger solar PV system that would not have to be removed in ten years’ time (when the lesser cost PW ‐ Facilities Development approach will require additional roof work). $ 2,300,000 PHA ‐ Gap Funding for MACAA Apartments $ 1,980,000 PHA ‐ Gap Funding for Park Street Christian Church/Hinton Avenue United Methodist Church Apartments $ 1,950,000 Total $ 22,367,110 Summary of CIP New Requests FY 2023 Budget Development OTHER ‐ New Requests for the Future Amount Department Description Requested Fire Cardiac Monitors $ 200,000 Fire Anticipated FD or Public Safety Training Center Location TBD Buford Roof Replacement ‐ FY26 ‐ if reconfiguration does not PW‐ Facilities Development move forward $ 1,200,000 PW‐ Facilities Development Burnley Moran Roof $ 1,100,000 PW‐ Facilities Development City Hall Complex Building Envelope Maintenance $ 500,000 PW‐ Facilities Development General District Court Furniture Fixtures & Equipment ‐ FY26 $ 202,000 CIP Draft Questions and Responses – Revised to include additional questions since November 23rd 1. Should we expect to receive the typical pre‐CIP‐hearing summary with a paragraph and fund balance on each line item? (For example, see last year's CIP hearing agenda.) This will be provided as part of the materials for the public hearing in December. 2. In particular, I'd like to better understand the $1.317m in this draft CIP for the Guadalajara Parking Structure, bringing it to a total funding of $4.317 million (of which an amount in the mid‐ six figures has been expended on studies, as I understand it). Presumably that's not enough to build a garage, and there's no funding in out‐years, so what's happening here? Additionally, there appear to be bond issuances in FY 24/25 totaling $5 million called "Parking Structure" with no accompanying expenditures? The City still has contractual obligations to Albemarle County with respect to parking and the Courts project. The FY22 Adopted CIP plan provided for $7M in funding in FY23 for the parking deck. The current FY23 draft, re‐allocates $5M of that funding to help get the Schools Reconfiguration project funded at $75M. The remaining $2M was split leaving $1.317 million to help address the contractual obligations with the County and funds $638k for the structural work needed in the Market Street Garage. Should the funding currently allocated for the Courts parking obligation be more than what is necessary, it would be staff’s recommendation that those remaining funds be made available for Council to re‐allocate for other CIP needs. 3. Also, I'd like to hear more about why the $683k Market Street Garage Structural Repairs item isn't accompanied by a corresponding revenue item from the Parking Enterprise Fund. If garage revenue diverted to that "self‐sustaining parking" fund isn't paying for its own facilities' upkeep, what exactly is it for? The idea of a “self‐sustaining parking” fund has been the discussion and the goal from the beginning of the creation of the Parking Fund. However, largely due to COVID, the fund balance in the Parking Fund has been reduced to approximately $640k at the end of FY21. The majority of the net parking revenues have continued to be returned to the General Fund each year. There was a plan in place to gradually decrease the parking revenue going to the General fund down to zero but with the impacts of COVID that has not occurred. Additionally, structural repairs will be needed for the Water Street parking garage in the near future and the Parking Enterprise would be the source for those expenses. 4. An understanding of the new requests? whether they can be pushed back The items in red (some of which were new requests this year) were added to the CIP based on staff’s assessment of the need relative to contractual obligations, legal mandates, and/or the presence of a health and safety issue. Each addition resulted in reductions from other projects. 5. Whether this fits the affordable housing plan Council just approved Although, the CIP is not the sole source of funding for the affordable housing plan, this is more of a policy question that both the Planning Commission and Council should consider as part the recommendation and approval process. 6. If there is a way to push significant funds into bicycle and pedestrian safety, for example that Stribling request that appears to be strategic and time sensitive. CIP discussions have noted that the projects included in the 5‐year plan are pushing the City to the limits of both affordability and debt capacity. The decision to delay, add, increase, or decrease funding from one project to another is a decision and discussion of priorities that the Commission and Council should consider as part of the recommendation and approval process. 7. What SIA is for and if it can be pushed back? Please see the accompanying SIA Fact Sheet. Whether or not to push back the timing of a particular project is a decision and discussion of priorities that the Commission and Council should consider as part of the recommendation and approval process. 8. Is there is a way to get Tonsler back on the map? $1.8M remains in the CIP that was previously approved for the Tonsler Park Master Plan Implementation. Staff has recently received 2 schematic plans for parking and the new facility. It is anticipated that another $3.5M would be necessary to complete the project and that request currently remains on the unfunded list. 9. Is there is anything else that we thought couldn't be pushed back last year, but now we know it can? The current CIP draft is reflective of staff’s recommendation based on information known at this point. The decision to delay, add, decrease, or increase funding from one project to another is a decision and discussion of priorities that the Commission and Council should consider as part of the recommendation and approval process. 10. The bulk of the school reconfiguration funding is in FY25. Is that an implicit policy decision to override the school board's decision in October to start in FY24? Are budget needs driving that? The first copy of the draft that was circulated incorrectly listed the bulk of the funding in FY25. That was corrected with the current draft that was recirculated to the Planning Commission and Council on Wednesday (11/17/21) afternoon. 11. What is the purpose of the $2.5 million in school reconfiguration fund allocated for FY23? Is that to fund design materials? I understand the VMDO contract for the conceptual study came in at $1.47 million, even though Council allocated $3 million — can we offset some of this with the $1.53m balance of that allocation? In 2019, City Council approved the expenditure of $3M for design work relating to this project. A $50M place holder was applied to the FY25 budget to anticipate a construction budget. Neither of these values were based on formal estimates, but were attempts to get design work started, and to build a funding path. After an approximate one‐year delay due to concerns over funding related to the pandemic, VMDO Architects were hired to begin design work. The City’s initial contract with VMDO amounted to approximately half of the $3M budget, leaving some funding for extension of VMDO’s contract into Construction Documentation, but not enough to complete the work. An additional $2.5M will be required to reach project completion. City Council and School Board have supported an adjustment in scope that will bring the project cost to $75M, which is planned in FY24 to avoid a year of cost escalation. To that end, $2.5M will be required in FY23 to contract with our consultants to complete design work in time for project bidding in FY24, at which time the $72.5M will be required. 12. New sidewalks: is there really nothing we can do to get this line item off of $0, or at least above $100k in the long term? The last pre‐covid budget, FY20, had $400,000 for New Sidewalks every year. There is currently $785k available and allocated for the new sidewalks. This funding plan remains unchanged from the plan that was adopted in FY22. Additionally, several of the VDOT Smart Scale projects also include funding for new sidewalks or sidewalk enhancements. The decision to add or increase funding from one project to another is a decision and discussion of priorities that the Commission and Council should consider as part of the recommendation and approval process. 13. On a similar note, the "reduced" $1.25m for Street Milling & Paving for FY23 is the amount our pre‐covid budgets projected for every year through FY24. Is there a documented reason why we need 20% more money in that pot each year indefinitely? The City’s roadway network consists of 682 segments of streets, totaling 160 miles. A citywide survey of all 160 miles of roadway was recently completed and yielded an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score of 69, which is on the high end of the Fair range. 71% of the City’s roadway network maintained a pavement condition of Fair, Satisfactory or Good, while the remaining 29% is in Poor, Serious or Failed condition. It is the goal to maintain a city‐wide PCI target of 65. 14. Why does the Citywide ADA Improvements ‐ Sidewalks and Curbs line item zero out in FY27? Is the end of the ADA‐noncompliance backlog in sight? There is currently $606k in budget available for ADA improvements to sidewalks and curbs. Based on previously presented projections, funding the School Reconfiguration Project has the potential to exhaust the City’s bond capacity for an extended period of time. This means that the outstanding debt would exceed the City’s debt policy and the City’s ability to add new projects will be limited to only what can be funded by cash. To illustrate that point, there are no bondable dollars shown in the revenue in FY27 and the amount of the cash transfer from the General Fund (which is set by the 3% pay‐go policy) was allocated to the items that generally receive annual recurring funding. That allocation will be subject to further discussion and re‐prioritization and should be considered as part of the recommendation and approval process. 15. Stribling: Would the funding agreement proposed by the Economic Development Department count against our debt capacity? If so, what led to the decision to move toward that arrangement instead of a cash proffer? If not, why aren't we going through with the Stribling sidewalk improvements in this draft (with an expenditure item and a corresponding revenue item from the developer's line of credit?) What is the impact on our debt capacity from revenues increasing $700,000/year, all else being equal? It is possible to structure the funding agreement for this project in a way that it would not count towards the City’s debt limit and the anticipated new real tax revenue generated by the development would sufficiently cover the annual debt payment. Considerations to earmark specific tax revenue becomes part of the larger discussion of funding priorities that the Commission should consider as part of its recommendation and Council should consider as part of the approval process. 16. West Main Streetscape: I understand Phases I/II are defunded, but is Phase III (fully funded by the state) still moving forward? I understand we're applying for Phase IV... will we only move forward with it if Smart Scale awards the entire request (less the $5m promised by UVa)? It is anticipated that Council will provide further direction on the West Main Street project upon discussion and adoption of a formal resolution to reprogram the $18.25M included in the CIP as being reprogrammed to the School Reconfiguration project. 17. Friendship Court 7a. Echoing my questions from my email sent on 11/9: what is the Friendship Court Infrastructure Improvements line item going toward? How is the required amount of gap funding determined? Response: The line item is for the development of a park, streetscape (street, stormwater, sidewalk, etc.) to City standards, and will be turned over to the City for maintenance. Also, the infrastructure design and development would integrate the site much better into the city grid system. PHA and staff discussed the design extensively. 7b. Phase I is now up to $42,530,317 in funding, or $401,229/unit [with the caveat that some of it will be paid out over time] — why is so much funding needed when CRHA is producing units at ~$200k/unit? Response: Friendship Court is looking at constructing between 430 to 450 units and the project would also include a park and streetscape, and the infrastructure component drove their unit cost high. 7c. I understand Phase IV. is less‐constrained and will contain commercial and denser residential, since it'll be after all the current residents are rehoused in Phases I‐III. Presumably that makes the economics work better — so why does it require $4.5 million in gap funding? Response: PHA estimated their gap needs and approached the City for assistance and after extensive discussions, the City approved their request. Again, the components of their infrastructure development necessitated the funding need. They are building a park and new streetscape that will be integrated into the City’s grid system. Also, Phase 4 is a place holder and will be addressed as the project progresses to that point. 7d. When will the CAHF efficacy study, part of the contract addendum with RHI/HR&A, be completed? Do we expect this funding outlook to change as the Affordable Housing Plan is implemented and the committee governing funding commitments is convened? (I note that consultants have repeatedly said that our LIHTC gap funding significantly exceeds that of other cities that still make projects work — and Friendship Court Phase I both exceeded VHDA per‐unit cost limits and received more gap funding than qualified for LIHTC scoring points by some $820,000.) Response: CAHF Evaluation Study and Program Redesign is expected to be completed in early 2022. At this time, we don’t know whether the funding outlook will change or not. The funding request for the school reconfiguration is going to have a huge impact on funding outlook into the future. This project is creating a neighborhood with blocks, new streetscape that will be integrated into the city grid, creating a livable and pedestrian friendly place. Additional Questions (Received after November 23rd work session) 1. What is happening with the $1.8 million currently assigned for Tonsler? Staff are now moving forward and recently received 2 schematic plans for parking and the new facility. Once price estimates are finalized a community engagement process will take place in early Spring. It is anticipated that additional funds will be needed for additional parking as well as to construct the field house. 2. Is there was any more information available regarding the CAHF Affordable Housing line item of $925k? A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) will be issued to solicit proposals for allocation after the CAHF Performance Evaluation is completed Additional Information Received from Commissioner Solla‐Yates: I can share a little bit on the CAHF since I sit on that HAC subcommittee. In past years we used a scoring system drawn up to mirror the federal Low Income Tax Credit scores. Staff ranked applications according to the system and made recommendations largely based on their ability to compete for federal matching funds, then the committee decided how to allocate the funds based on those scores. It's a complicated process and we've had applicants have issues getting their submissions in on time or submit applications that would not be allowed by our zoning, but it appears to be better than direct appeals for funding to Council, which is a truly awful process. I should note we have awarded CAHF funds for projects that don't qualify for federal support (rehab services jump to mind) but generally LIHTC is the star, just because that's where so much of the money is. 3. Is more info on what the $50k (FY23) Historic District and Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines is slated for? These guidelines serve to inform and facilitate development activity consistent with the City’s adopted preservation and design policies in the City’s designated Historic Districts and Entrance Corridors. There are code requirements for review and update of the guidelines that need to occur in regular increments. A comprehensive review is needed, and these funds will be used to fund the use of a consultant to help complete the review and update. These updates are particularly pertinent at this time so that the guidelines can be aligned with the City’s new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 4. Realizing that there is a mismatch between bondable and non‐bondable and the PC seemed interested in reducing bondable recommendations and raising non bondable. I'm guessing based on past years that that won't work. Is it possible to list out what on the unfunded list is bondable? Almost everything on the unfunded list except for the affordable housing and tree items appear be eligible to finance with bonds. However, keep in mind that bond eligibility and/or the lack of bond capacity would not necessarily preclude the City from funding the project with cash. Staff’s recommendation is that the Commission move forward with its recommendations based on the merits of the project as they relate to the Comp Plan and funding priorities. The method of funding is important but should be a secondary decision. Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Revenue and Expenditure Description Summary Revenue Summary Total proposed revenues for FY 2023 are $25,202,907 broken down as follows: 1) The General Fund transfer to the Capital Fund is proposed at a total of $6,737,940. 2) Transfer from the General Fund - Mall Vendor Fee revenue of $78,000, to offset the cost of Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs. 3) A contribution from Albemarle County of $62,500 for the County’s portion of expenses related to facility improvements at C.A.T.E.C. 4) The annual $200,000 contribution from the Charlottesville City Schools for their Small Capital Improvement Program. 5) P.E.G. Fee revenue of $40,000 which is received as part of the franchise agreement with Comcast. 6) The $18,084,467 in bond revenue to pay for projects deemed bondable. Expenditure Summary Bondable Projects Total proposed Bondable Project expenditures for FY 2023 are $18,084,467 and descriptions for the projects being funded are shown below. Education 1) Lump Sum to Schools Proposed FY 23 – $1,200,000 This sum is the yearly appropriation to the City Schools for their Capital Program. Project types include health/safety, facility asset preservation, code compliance (building & fire codes, and ADA), scheduled/periodic maintenance, and to a lesser extent, quality of space/functionality. Some of the items proposed to be covered by this appropriation include Clark Cafeteria Flooring Restoration, Clark and Walker Envelope Restoration, School Security and CHS Electrical Panel Replacement. The balance for the lump sum to schools account as of November 30,2021 is $3,017,083. 2) Schools H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed FY 23 – $750,000 1 Facilities Maintenance has developed a 20-year plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy-efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. As of January 1,2020, per EPA ruling, R22 refrigerant will be phased out completely, no new or imported R22 allowed in the US. Reclaimed refrigerant would still be available but at a very high cost. FM’s plan moving forward is to concentrate our replacement efforts on equipment such as chillers and rooftop units which contain large amounts of R22. The refrigerant from these units as they are replaced will be recovered by our technicians and stored in our warehouse for future needs until our inventory of R22 units is depleted. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $743,327. 3) C.C.S. Priority Improvements Projects Proposed FY 23 – $1,250,000 In 2016, City School's Facility Improvement Planning Committee (FIPC) met and selected the following project “themes”, as the top CCS project priorities. Subsequently, the School Board reviewed and formally approved the “themes” and the phasing plan. *Classroom Modernization *Corridor Improvements *Daylighting *Auditorium Renovations *Cafeteria Renovations The general scope of work could include new flooring, ceiling replacement with new LED light fixtures, furniture (flexible), paint – including accent colors & white board paint (dry erase) for select walls, casework/cubbies/classroom storage/coat racks, daylighting- windows/solar tubes/light shelves/etc., technology upgrades, acoustic treatments, window treatments, minor electrical & HVAC work. The balance for this program as of November 30, 2021, is $2,498,745. 4) Charlottesville High School Roof Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $1,200,000 Charlottesville High School was constructed and opened in 1974. The current, 217,000 square foot roof was installed in 1997. This is its second roof and is a black 60mil EPDM membrane fully adhered over tapered rigid insulation. The roof was covered under warranty, which has since expired. A roof assessment was completed in 2008 by Heyward Boyd Architects. Based on recommendations in that 2008 study, the City of Charlottesville engaged a contractor in 2011 to perform the remedial work designed to extend the lifespan of the roof. We are now beginning to face the inevitable end of useful life for the CHS roof system. By 2023 it should be expected that the roof membrane will be 26 years old, degraded beyond repair, and should be replaced. This project represents a 'membrane-over' type of roof replacement which maintains existing insulation and membrane while a new membrane is installed atop. The estimated life of this system is 10-15 years. An FY23 CIP new request (currently on the unfunded list) was submitted for an additional $2,300,000 to pursue a complete reroof valued at $3.5M providing for a roof with a 30-year life span that would allow for installation of a larger solar PV system. The balance for the CHS Roof Replacement account as of November 30, 2021, is $120,000 which will be used in FY22 for the design portion of this project. 5) Charlottesville City School Reconfiguration Proposed FY23 - $2,500,000 2 Charlottesville City School Board has, since at least 2008, advocated for the reconfiguration of grade distribution at CCS to eliminate one campus transition and to consolidate 6-8th grade students in one campus. In 2019, City Council approved the expenditure of $3M for design work to this end. A $50M place holder was applied to the FY25 budget to anticipate a construction budget. Neither of these values were based on formal estimates, but were attempts to get design work started, and to build a funding path. After an approximate one-year delay due to pandemic-related funding VMDO Architects were hired to begin design work. The City’s initial contract with VMDO amounted to approximately half of the $3M budget, leaving some funding for extension of VMDO’s contract into Construction Documentation, but not enough to complete the work. An additional $2.5M will be required to reach project design completion. City Council and School Board have supported an adjustment in scope that will bring the project cost to $75M, which should be available in FY24 to avoid a year of cost escalation. To that end, $2.5M will be required in FY23 to contract with our consultants to complete design work in time for project bidding in FY24, at which time the $72.5M will be required. The balance for the School Reconfiguration Project account as of November 30, 2021, is $1,302,390. Facilities Capital Improvements 1) Lump Sum to Facilities Capital Projects Proposed FY 23 – $1,045,491 Facilities Development uses this lump sum to fund improvements and repairs to various City owned facilities. Typical project types include health/safety, facility asset preservation, code compliance (building & fire codes, and ADA), scheduled/periodic capital maintenance, and quality of space/functionality. Some of the items proposed to be covered by this appropriation include continued upgrades of the CATEC electrical distribution system, upgrades to certain HVAC systems at CATEC, exterior envelope restoration of the Community Services building on East Jefferson, annual roof inspections. The balance for lump sum to facilities account as of November 30, 2021, is $3,246,356. 2) City Building H.V.A.C. Replacement Plan Proposed FY 23 – $250,000 Facilities Maintenance has developed a plan for the replacement of H.V.A.C. equipment in City Facilities. Each piece of equipment has a predictable life cycle, beyond which failure becomes imminent. All aging equipment will be replaced with the most energy- efficient option available on the market, resulting in direct and lasting cost savings. As of January 1, 2020, per EPA ruling, R22 refrigerant will be phased out completely, no new or imported R22 allowed in the US. Reclaimed refrigerant would still be available but at a very high cost. FM’s plan moving forward is to concentrate our replacement efforts on equipment such as chillers and rooftop units which contain large amounts of R22. The refrigerant from these units as they are replaced will be recovered by our technicians and stored in our warehouse for future needs until our inventory of R22 units is depleted. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $434,695. 3) City and Schools Solar P.V. Program Proposed FY 23 – $75,000 3 The City and Schools Solar PV Program consists of phased installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on the roofs of various Charlottesville municipal and school facilities. This request for CIP funding is intended to make a steady investment in the City's commitment to environmental stewardship and "leading by example" with environmentally friendly and economically beneficial strategies and technology. This program decreases utility costs through on-site power generation. Unlike other facility- related capital programs, costs for solar equipment components been declining and advances in engineering designs have kept installation costs stable and should do so for the foreseeable future. There is ongoing evaluation of options to scale the deployment of solar PV and offset of energy consumption through a power purchase agreement. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $571,976. Public Safety and Justice 1) Bypass Fire Station Proposed FY 23 – $1,206,976 Design of a new Station #1 located on the Rt. 250 By-pass began in 2019 with an adopted Conceptual Design that was completed in October 2020. The current project budget based on the design is $5,917,885. In the early 2021, the Fire Department re-evaluated the adopted 2020 Conceptual Design and identified design concerns and requested going back to Preliminary Design to address these concerns. Three new concepts were presented in late June 2021. The Construction Cost estimates for the October 2020 adopted Conceptual Design and three concepts were re-calculated based on current escalation costs. The four estimates range from $4,535,395 to $4,797,423. The adopted 2020 Conceptual Design is now estimated at $4,709,210, which is over 14% higher than just 9 months prior ($4,114,435). In consideration of the cost escalation and to-be- selected concept, the current construction project deficit is approximately $682,058 (including design, escalation to bid day, and construction contingency. In late 2020, the City's project team also learned that the project would require a new water main to complete a loop along the Rt. 250 By-pass corridor to receive the necessary water service, which was not included as part of the original project scope of work. This additional water main work is estimated to cost $524,918, which includes design, escalation to bid day, and construction contingency. The sum of the construction cost deficit of $682,058 and the $594,918 cost of the new water main equate to the additional $1,206,976 being requested for this project. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $5,244,511. Transportation and Access 1) Sidewalk Repair and Improvements Proposed FY 23 – $500,000 This project funds the repair of the City’s existing sidewalks. Sidewalk repairs are necessary to keep existing infrastructure safe and hazard free and are necessary for completion of the pedestrian network which in turn, is needed to balance sound transportation alternatives. When the tripping hazards, gaps, and broken sidewalks are repaired it helps to minimize the liability of the City. This project also includes approximately $200,000 - $250,000 per year to provide for the repair, upgrade, and/or 4 replacement of existing A.D.A. ramps, primarily those ramps on streets scheduled for paving as required by ADA law. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $461,727. Current available balances in other sidewalk accounts also include New Sidewalks - $785,830 and Citywide Sidewalks and Curbs - $606,031 (see below). 2) S.I.A. Immediate Implementation Proposed FY 23 - $200,000 This funding is intended to facilitate completion of projects outlined in the Strategic Investment Area Plan completed in December 2013. Examples of capital projects in the plan include 2nd Street improved streetscape, Pollocks Branch/greenway trail bridge, improved connectivity and walkability, and improvement to the Monticello Avenue bile/pedestrian streetscape. For more information on this project please visit the following website: https://www.charlottesville.gov/1150/Strategic-Investment-Area-SIA The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $1,197,262. 3) Small Area Plans Proposed FY 23 - $100,000 The Comprehensive Plan identified several specific areas of the city where planning and design issues or investment opportunities may warrant additional study through the development of specific small area plans in the coming years. The small area planning process is intended to examine areas anew and holistically, with the full engagement of the public, elected and appointed officials and planning professionals. The resulting small area plans will provide the basis for future planning, urban design, investment decisions, and possible changes to zoning and the future land use plan. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $496,037. 4) Street Milling and Paving Proposed FY 23 – $1,250,000 These funds will be used to repair street problems that occur during the year, such as potholes, and support additional street milling and paving projects that are a major part of maintaining the City’s aging infrastructure. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $1,157,783. 5) Parking Structure Proposed FY 23 - $1,317,000 These funds were originally budgeted to construct a parking structure downtown. The parking structure was included as part of the 2018 intergovernmental memorandum of agreement between the City and Albemarle County regarding expansion, renovation, and operation of a set of courts. At Council’s request, the plans to construct a parking garage have been halted but the City still has a contractual obligation related to parking that must be addressed. City and County staff have been discussing potential options, but no final decisions have been made at this point. These funds will now be used to address any potential expenses that may be required to address these obligations. Any funds not used or needed will be reported to Council and available to be reallocated for other projects. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $2,869,993. 6) ADA Pedestrian Signal Upgrades Proposed FY 23 - $240,000 5 These funds seek to comply with requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide access to the sidewalk and street crossing network. A study of the city's signalized intersections conducted by Timmons Group in 2015 identified over $1.1 million dollars in deficiencies related to pedestrian access - including curb ramp improvements and access to pedestrian pushbuttons. This project aims to increase ADA access at those intersections. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $1,034,791. 7) Minor Bridge Repairs Proposed FY 23 – $225,000 This project is the continuation of the required maintenance of the various bridges throughout the City. This request is for lump sum C.I.P. project money to rehab/maintain citywide bridge projects. Work may include repairs to substructure (generally includes parts underneath and out of sight) and superstructure (generally includes the deck, railings, and 'visible to motorists' parts) elements. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $1,991,319. 8) Citywide ADA Improvements – Sidewalks and Curbs Proposed FY 23 – $200,000 These funds seek to comply with requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act to provide access to the sidewalk and street crossing network. The following budget request aims to improve approx. 460 high priority deficient curb ramps in neighborhoods per the ADA Transition Plan (Adopted 2013) and seeks to fill in gaps (less than 200 feet) in the sidewalk network per the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (Adopted 2015). These funds can be used to leverage federal grants that will help us to achieve ADA compliance more quickly. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $606,031. Current available balances in other sidewalk accounts also include New Sidewalks - $785,830 and Sidewalk Repair and Improvements - $461,727 (see above). 9) Traffic Signal Infrastructure Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $500,000 There has been no historical programmatic funding for replacement of traffic signal hardware and electronic equipment used to direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic: e.g., mast arms, signal heads, electronic controllers, vehicle detection loops, conduit, wiring, uninterruptible power supplies, switches, and protected pedestrian crossing systems. Efforts have been made at modernization of some components to leverage technological advances, but items have simply aged beyond their expected useful lives. Per a survey conducted in 2017, the estimated replacement value of all existing traffic signal equipment is more than $10 million. The estimated replacement value of those items surveyed with a condition rating of Fair (but aging), Poor or technologically Obsolete) is ~$2.6 million (assuming stable funding, adjusted for inflation). The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $428,000. 10) Market Street Garage Concrete Structural Repairs Proposed FY 23 – $683,000 The Market Street Parking Garage is four and a half (4.5) levels (one at-grade and three and a half elevated) and consists of a cast-in-place post tensioned concrete structural system. The facility was constructed in 1973 and provides 649 total parking spaces for employees and visitors to downtown. All four sides of the building are clad in a slatted 6 precast façade and masonry brick, allowing for natural light and ventilation. This facility is a critical component to the overall success of downtown and the Mall. Kimley-Horn, the original design engineer of the facility, recently performed a limited condition assessment of the deck’s readily accessible and visible elements which are categorized as: Structural, Waterproofing, Operational, Systems, and Aesthetic. In general, the condition assessment identified conditions common among parking structures of similar age and construction type in this region. No immediate life-safety issues were observed. Overall, the parking deck appeared to be performing well but does have some deficiencies that need to be addressed to prevent further deterioration. This resulted in an overall performance rating of ‘Fair. The details of these findings are discussed further in the main body of the report. Findings were broken into 3 categories: PRIORITY 1 - deficient items have a more immediate impact to the functionality of the building systems and are recommended to be addressed within one to two years. Included are also items observed that may present a life-safety concerns. PRIORITY 2 - deficient items are intended to assist in protecting the building from further deficiencies and are recommended to be addressed within two to three years. PRIORITY 3 - deficient items are existing deficiencies that do not appear to prevent the systems from functioning now, but that could impact the systems if not addressed in the future. Work recommended in this FY 2023 submission represent the Priority 1 project elements. Priority 2 and 3 works will be contemplated in separate, subsequent submissions. Structural/waterproofing maintenance projects, similar to the work contemplated for this project, are necessary for such a facility and have occurred on the Market Street Parking Garage on, generally, a 5-year cycle since 2001, and perhaps earlier. This trend is expected to continue. And, as the facility continues to age, the scope, cost, and frequency of such work will likely continue to increase. Parks and Recreation 1) McIntire Park Drainage Corrections Proposed FY 23 – $350,000 Several problematic drainage conditions have deteriorated to a degree that Norfolk Southern, the Railway Company whose corridor is directly east of the playing fields, notified the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and recommended that corrective actions be undertaken to repair an eroding railroad embankment. As recently as January 2020 the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority made some repairs in the vicinity. It was during these repairs that it came to light that the erosive runoff was generated from the Little League complex, specifically an inlet and pipe which were installed by the league and daylighted into the embankment. 2) Key Recreation Slate Roof Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $42,000 Key Rec Center serves as a contributing structure to the Charlottesville Downtown architectural fabric. It houses a public Recreation Center and operations for the Downtown Ting Pavilion. Key Rec Center utilizes a compilation of slate and flat membrane roofing systems totaling just over 10,000sf. A 2018 roofing assessment performed by Grimm & Parker Architects (attached) indicated that the slate portion of the roof (the bulk of this roof) is in poor condition and should be replaced within 5 years (CY 7 2023). This project contemplates replacement only of the slate portion of the roof. A 2013 project was undertaken to extend the service life of the slate roof. And it did. However, the roof assessment team estimated in 2018 that, at that time, there were several hundred slate shingles which require replacement. Things have not improved since then. Some slate is now becoming dislodged and may present hazardous conditions. The existing slate roof area of the building is now experiencing some leaking conditions which may hamper Parks & Rec programming and service delivery. An additional $486,000 is programmed for FY24 to fully fund the cost of the replacement. Housing Projects 3) Public Housing Redevelopment Proposed FY 23 – $3,000,000 This project sets aside funding for the future redevelopment of the public housing sites. This funding is the fourth year of an original City projected commitment of $15 million for the redevelopment of the public housing sites. An additional $3M is included here for FY 27 which would bring the total commitment to $21 million. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $3,301,134. Non-bondable Projects Total non-bondable project expenditures for the FY 2022 are $7,118,440 and broken down as follows: Education 1) Schools Small Capital Improvements Proposed FY 23 – $200,000 This sum is to cover some of the small capital improvement projects within the various City Schools which includes a wide range of maintenance and improvement projects. All individual projects funded via this account are fully vetted and prioritized by the Charlottesville City Schools Administration and the individual school principals. This expenditure item is offset by a corresponding dedicated revenue from the Schools. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $3,017,083. Economic Development 1) Economic Development Strategic Initiatives Proposed FY 23 – $150,000 The City has a history of funding a strategic investments fund so that a ready source of funds is available when unique opportunities arise. The strategic initiative funds are critical to the economic development efforts of the City. These efforts include marketing, business retention, small business support, incubator support, sponsorship of job fairs and workforce development. These funds are also used to assist in long term strategic improvements, to grow and expand the tax base, as well as allowing the City to respond quickly to take advantage of a variety of strategic opportunities. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $1,540,498 8 Facilities Capital Projects 1) HVAC Contingency Fund – City Facilities Proposed FY 23 – $25,000 In the event of a critical HVAC/Electrical equipment loss, funding over and above current expenditures would be needed due to aging mechanical infrastructure. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will accumulate over time so that in the event of a critical failure, funds would be available to address costs that would be needed to stabilize and allow HVAC and electrical systems to continue working properly. 2) HVAC Contingency Fund – School Facilities Proposed FY 23 – $25,000 In the event of a critical HVAC/Electrical equipment loss, funding over and above current expenditures would be needed due to aging mechanical infrastructure. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will accumulate over time so that in the event of a critical failure, funds would be available to address costs that would be needed to stabilize and allow HVAC and electrical systems to continue working properly. Public Safety and Justice 1) Police Mobile Data Terminals Proposed FY 23 – $45,000 Mobile data terminals will provide necessary and proper communication and safety equipment to officers while in the field. These devices allow officers to communicate with a central dispatch office, display mappings, CAD drawings, diagrams, review the criminal history of a suspect, print reports and citations and access safety information. Funds were allocated as part of the CIP to replace most of the inventory because they were outdated. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will accumulate over time so that funds will be available as the radios reach the end of their useful life. The balance for this project as of November 30,2021 is $69,514 2) Police Portable Radio Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $45,000 All City radios were required to be replaced in FY 20 to be compatible with the new regional 800Mhz radio system. The citywide the cost to replace all the radios is substantial. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will accumulate over time so that funds will be available as the radios reach the end of their useful life. 3) Fire Portable Radio Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $45,000 All City radios were required to be replaced in FY 20 to be compatible with the new regional 800Mhz radio system. The citywide the cost to replace all the radios is substantial. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will 9 accumulate over time so that funds will be available as the radios reach the end of their useful life. 4) Sheriff Portable Radio Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $18,800 All City radios were required to be replaced in FY 20 to be compatible with the new regional 800Mhz radio system. The citywide the cost to replace all the radios is substantial. This account will establish a level annual funding amount that will accumulate over time so that funds will be available as the radios reach the end of their useful life. Transportation and Access 1) State Bridge and Highway Inspections Proposed FY 23 – $60,000 This project is the continuation of the required State inspections of the various bridges throughout the City. VDOT requires bridge inspection reports on numerous structures be submitted annually. In addition to bridges, box culverts and overhead signs must also be inspected. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $295,417. 2) CAT Transit Bus Replacement Proposed FY 23 – $139,510 The matching funds are to leverage Federal and State capital grant funding for bus purchases. For cost projections it is assumed that the federal share is 80 percent, the state share is 16 percent, and the City share is 4 percent. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $740,927. 3) Intelligent Transportation System Proposed FY 23 – $150,000 The Intelligent Transportation System (I.T.S.) is comprised of traffic signal related hardware and software that communicates and coordinates with traffic signals citywide from the Traffic Operations Command Center. The system is also comprised of three weather stations related to street surface conditions during weather emergencies, and four (4) variable message boards located on major city entrances. Coordinated signal corridors controlled from the Control Center include Emmet Street, Main Street, Avon Street, Preston Avenue, and Ridge/5th. The project funds maintenance and upgrades of the system, including field and command center hardware and software, as well as on- going costs for utilities such as phone lines. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $180,559. 4) City Wide Traffic Engineering Improvements Proposed FY 23 – $100,000 The request is for lump sum CIP project money to address various traffic engineering issues as they arise. Projects would include traffic control enhancements, reconfiguring intersections, retiming, and coordinating traffic signals, addressing parking concerns, mitigating traffic safety problems, and other creative retrofitting to existing traffic operations in lieu of building new roads. Potential projects are coordinated with other state and federal agencies as well as other city departments. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $282,0111. 10 5) Neighborhood Transportation Improvements Proposed FY 23 – $50,000 The proposed Neighborhood Transportation Improvements CIP budget request seeks to implement larger neighborhood improvements that would consume 50% or more of the annual Traffic Engineer's Traffic Improvements fund. Neighborhood Associations advocate for neighbors' requests to address certain corridors or intersections that impact a significant portion of their community. They generally address connectivity and safety issues within the transportation network. Neighborhood transportation improvements for projects such as JPA between Stribling and Cleveland, design, and construction of improvements on Forrest Hills, permanent implementation of the improvements along Locust Avenue, design, and construction of improvements along old Ridge Street. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $251,540. 6) Bicycle Infrastructure Proposed FY 23 – $137,000 This project implements the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which addresses various bicycle access and safety issues on City streets, as well as other related bicycle infrastructure issues. Potential projects will be vetted through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee as well as at Traffic Meetings to include N.D.S., police, fire, parks/trails planner, and public works. Projects would include re-striping pavements, reconfiguring intersections, additional bicycle. For more information on plans for these project funds please visit: https://www.charlottesville.gov/559/Biking-Walking The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $636,976. 7) Right of Way (ROW) Appurtenance Proposed FY 23 – $25,000 The funds represent a flexible lump sum account to address unfunded needs for the repair and replacement of ROW appurtenances, such as guard rail, handrails, and other safety and security features. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $141,178. 8) Traffic Sign Retro Reflective Compliance Proposed FY 23 – $75,000 A large portion of Right-of-Way signage in the City is out of compliance with FHWA regulations regarding retro-reflectivity. There are approximately 12,000 to 15,000 street signs City wide. Bringing all those signs into compliance will take approximately 3.5 years to complete. This funding represents the second of 3.5 years of funding necessary to achieve compliance. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $151,064. 9) ADA Ramp Corrections Proposed FY 23 – $134,930 These funds seek to comply with requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act to provide access to the sidewalk and street crossing network. The following budget request aims to improve high priority deficient curb ramps in neighborhoods. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $131,000. 10) Historic District and Entrance Proposed FY 23 – $50,000 Corridor Design Guidelines These guidelines serve to inform and facilitate development activity consistent with the City’s adopted preservation and design policies in the City’s designated Historic Districts 11 and Entrance Corridors. There are code requirements for review and update of the guidelines that need to occur in regular increments. A comprehensive review is needed, and these funds will be used to fund the use of a consultant to help complete the review and update. These updates are particularly pertinent at this time so that the guidelines can be aligned with the City’s new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Parks and Recreation 1) Parks and Recreation Lump Sum Account Proposed FY 23 – $300,000 This sum is the yearly appropriation to Parks and Recreation for their capital program. The account is needed to provide Parks and Recreation with the ability to accomplish the most urgent and/or important community needs. Project types include health/safety, facility asset preservation, code compliance (building & fire codes, and ADA), and scheduled/periodic maintenance and deferred maintenance and replacement. Some of the items proposed to be covered by this appropriation include basketball/tennis court maintenance/resurfacing (e.g.CHS Tennis Courts), drainage issues at the McIntire Skate Park and Forest Hills Park, replacement of spray ground features at Forest Hills and Greenleaf Park. As of November 30, 2021, the balance for this project is $394,702. These funds will be used to re-plaster the Onesty Family and Aquatic Center pool tub with a combination of white coat in the lap pool and the circulation pool area. Remove existing pool coping, caulking, repaint existing play structures and repaint Zero depth area. Bids are expected in December to start the project in the New Year and be ready by mid-April for the summer pool season. 2) Parks and Schools Playground Renovations Proposed FY 23 – $112,000 The Parks and Recreation Department maintains twenty-nine (44) playgrounds across the City. This project includes the replacement of the City Parks playground equipment and of playground equipment at Charlottesville City School Parks, to ensure user safety and comply with current codes. This project will provide improved safety for the residents who use playgrounds daily. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $357,956. The funds will be used for the following replacement playgrounds: Meade Park, Belmont Park, and Venable School Playground. 3) Urban Tree Planting Proposed FY 23 – $75,000 The protection of the Urban Tree Canopy has a direct affect upon air quality, stormwater management and quality of life for City residents and is a highly held value among residents of the City. These funds will also be used for the procurement of replacement trees and the planting of new trees in areas of where invasive species are prevalent and along riparian buffers to enhance water quality and stormwater management strategies. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $75,000. 4) Parkland and Trails Acquisition Proposed FY 23 – $125,000 and Development 12 These funds will be used to pursue land acquisition opportunities to preserve open space, protect natural resources and improve riparian buffers and provide future trail connections. This will also provide funding for the development of the City’s trails and greenways. Green infrastructure and open space conservation are often the cheapest way to safeguard drinking water, clean the air and achieve other environmental goals. Trails and urban connector paths are also highly desired by residents and visitors alike. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $311,347. These funds will be used for the matching funds for a VDOT grant for Meadow Creek trail, land acquisition at west McIntire Park for the 250 Bypass Trail, construction management services for Rugby Avenue Trail and Washington Park Ramp projects and possibly a land acquisition on the Rivanna River for trail expansion The $125,000 next year allocation is earmarked to cover the reaming match for the VDOT grant. 5) Downtown Mall Infrastructure Repairs Proposed FY 23 – $78,000 This account creates a funding source for major repair and maintenance initiatives on the mall, activity which currently does not have regular funding from any other sources. Examples of work would include runnel repair or renovation, crossing repairs, repairs to section from Omni to Water Street, reworking/repairing larger fields of pavers that have failed or are failing, light relocation or replacement, upgrading electrical systems to include more efficient lighting fixtures, banner and flag bracket replacement and repairs, twice a year cleaning and sanding and similar activities. A transfer from the General Fund of the revenues collected from the vendor and cafe fees paid annually to the City by merchants on the Mall is used to offset the cost of this project. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $267,180. This balance is subject to change based on actual collections of café fees. 6) Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan Proposed FY 23 – $150,000 A Park’s Comprehensive Master Plan identifies a series of recommendations that will guide decision making and investments over a 10-year span. Charlottesville Parks and Recreation needs its first Comprehensive Master Plan written to best serve the citizens for the next decade. The department does possess some Site Master Plans and follows the City's Strategic Plan and a few other guiding/supporting documents. However, the department has never had the overarching Master Plan that looks at City's entire Parks and Recreation needs. As a result, some planning decisions have been made using a narrower scope which has caused for deficiencies in parks facilities, services, and programs. A professional, impartial, planning firm will be contracted. The Comprehensive Master Plan will be developed through a community-driven process. It will support the Mission, Vision and Values of the Charlottesville Parks and Recreation Department and provides specific action items and key steps necessary to meet the community’s parks and recreation needs. The firm will involve the city staff, stakeholders, and community in different stages of opportunity analysis and needs assessment. Using the input, they will develop and communicate different strategies with priorities in mind. This process will conclude with a final draft of the department's first guiding planning tool. This plan will be the link for which all site master plan’s will be created and implemented. 13 7) Oakwood Cemetery Drainage and Road Issues Proposed FY 23 – $47,500 Long-term drainage issues have compromised 12-15 grave sites at Oakwood Cemetery. Numerous complaints by deceased family members and many visual inspections have caused the immediate need toward a sustainable solution. Professional assessments agree that underground springs and indirect water sources have been flooding an area of the cemetery and has caused graves and headstones to significantly sink into the ground. Public Works has developed a plan for correction with an additional drain system directly in the damaged area. If the work can be done very soon, further damage to the grave sites can be minimized. The remedy would also not involve moving any graves. Secondly, paving of the road above the cemetery is needed. This road is continually eroding and causing problems throughout the cemetery. The road is needed for access to surrounding neighbors. However, this gravel surface is not sustainable and Public Works recommends paving the 400 liner feet of roadway. 8) Hazard and Liability Ash Tree Removal Proposed FY 23 – $50,000 To better address invasive species which, damage our native forests and tree species, these funds will be used to help offset expenses for removal of damaged trees because of the invasive emerald ash borer. This funding will also help preserve 31 of Charlottesville's best ash trees from emerald ash borer. The new influx of dead City trees left by emerald ash borer where they pose a risk to public safety will inevitably need to be removed at the City's expense. To maintain other levels of service and public safety regarding city-wide tree care, it is advised to offset ash removal costs with CIP funding. Removal of these dead and dying trees will be critical to public safety and improve the aesthetics and health of our urban forest. 9) City/County – Ivy Creek Preservation Study Proposed FY 23 – $66,000 Funding is requested for the Ivy Creek Preservation Project which will involve two studies (Level 1 Study: Farmhouse Complex buildings and the historic landscape and Level 2 in FY 27 for a total of $158,400. The City and Albemarle County will share the cost of the study. These funds represent the City’s share of the total cost. 10) City/County – Darden Towe Ash Trees Proposed FY 23 – $26,500 Funding is requested for landscaping of 125 trees for Darden Towe Park main parking lot to replace diseased /hazard ash trees that were removed in 2020. The City and Albemarle County will share the cost of the study. These funds represent the City’s share of the total cost. Technology Infrastructure 1) Communications Technology Account/ Proposed FY 23 – $40,000 Public Access Television This funding will allow the City to continue upgrading and improving its cable network services and programming to the citizens by providing technology equipment and maintenance of that equipment to the Public Access Offices providing technology and equipment to Channel 10 located in City Hall. This funding is tied to the P.E.G. Fee Revenue. 14 The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $91,591. 2) City Wide IT Strategic Infrastructure Proposed FY 23 – $250,000 Information Technology systems and software needs have grown from sporadic workgroup and departmental specific functions to integrated organization-wide technology platforms for analysis and decision-making. These important technology investments need to be reviewed outside of department specific needs, in a holistic and comprehensive manner, that considers the strategic direction and overall business needs of the City as whole. This project would establish a separate funding stream for City wide strategic technology needs. The projects funded by the Citywide IT Strategic Infrastructure account would support enhancement needs, such as the expansion of resources and emerging technologies, and projects/systems that would improve efficiency and effectiveness of our services and employees. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $417,367. Housing Projects 1) Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund (CAHF) Proposed FY 23 – $925,000 The primary focus of CAHF is to accomplish the goal adopted by Council in February 2010 (as contained in the 2025 Goals for Affordable Housing report) to grow the supported affordable housing stock to 15% of overall housing stock by 2025. CAHF funds are specifically targeted toward assisting with creation of new supported affordable housing opportunities for persons/households of low to moderate-income levels or preserving existing supported affordable units. For more information on this project please visit the following website: https://www.charlottesville.gov/679/Charlottesville- Affordable-Housing-Fund 2) Supplemental Rental Assistance Proposed FY 23 – $900,000 These funds continue the City’s support for the Charlottesville Supplemental Rental Assistance Program, or C.S.R.A.P., which provides monthly tenant-based rental assistance for Extremely Low-Income households. The balance for this project as of November 30, 2021, is $217,500. 3) Friendship Court Redevelopment Proposed FY 23 – $2,500,000 This funding is for the redevelopment of Friendship Court which will construct 450 new residential units in addition to an early childhood center and other commercial spaces that will serve the community. The four phases of redevelopment will create an equitable income mix of tiered affordability, including the necessary replacement of the existing 150 project-based Section 8 homes at Friendship Court and the creation of approximately 300 additional affordable units for low- and very-low-income households (30-80% AMI). In FY 20 the City included $4,005,159 in the CIP for Phase I. Due to COVID, additional funding originally planned for FY21 was deferred to FY 22. The FY 22 budget includes 394,841 to fund the balance of the full Phase I request, $2,000,000 for infrastructure improvements and $750,000 is included to fund a portion of Phase II. FY 23 budget includes $2,500,000 to fund the remaining funds needed for Phase II. 15 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: ZM21-00004 DATE OF HEARING: December 14, 2021 Project Planner: Dannan O’Connell Date of Staff Report: December 1, 2021 Applicant: Piedmont Housing Alliance Current Property Owner: Park Street Christian Church Application Information Property Street Address: 1200 Park Street Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: Tax Map 47-212, (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 7.5 acres (326,700 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Map): Higher Intensity Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Zoning Classification: PUD (Planned Unit Development) with proffers Overlay District: None Completeness: The application generally contains all the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34-41 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34-490. Other Approvals Required: Critical slopes waiver (P21-00126); as part of the PUD application. Applicant’s Request (Summary) Piedmont Housing Alliance, in partnership with Park Street Christian Church, has submitted an application pursuant to City Code 34-490 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the above parcel of land. The application proposes to change the zoning classification of the Subject Property from “R-1” (Single Family Residential) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. Page 1 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications KEY - Yellow: R-1, Orange: R-3 Context Map 3- Future Land Use Map, 2021 Comprehensive Plan KEY: Brown: Higher Intensity Residential, Yellow: General Residential, Dark Yellow: Medium Intensity Residential, Green: Park or Open Space Page 3 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church 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 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church 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 C. 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, Urban Form, Historic and Cultural Preservation i. Goal 1 – Zoning Ordinance: With the community, create a new zoning ordinance to reinforce and implement the vision for Charlottesville’s future as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan, Affordable Housing Plan, Small Area Plans, Vision Plans, and the Standards and Design Manual. ii. Goal 2 – Future Land Use Vision: Guide implementation of the Future Land Use vision contained in this Comprehensive Plan, including support for existing neighborhoods and preventing displacement. iii. Goal 3 – Balancing Preservation with Change: Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community. b. Housing i. Goal 2 – Citywide Diverse Housing: Support a wide range of rental and homeownership housing choices that are integrated and balanced across the city, and that meet multiple City goals including community sustainability, walkability, bikeability, ADA accessibility, public transit use, increased support for families with children and low-income households, access to food, access to local jobs, thriving local businesses, and decreased vehicle use. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request may not be in compliance: a. Transportation i. Goal 9 – Complete Streets: Create and maintain a connected network of safe, convenient, and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, including people of all ages and abilities. Page 5 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD i. Goal 11 – Efficient Mobility and Access: Maintain a safe and efficient transportation system to provide mobility and access. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Subject Property is currently zoned R-1. The R-1 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-1 districts consist of low-density residential areas. While the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map indicates the Subject Property remain Low Density Residential, the recently adopted 2021 Future Land Use Map designates 1200 Park Street as Higher Intensity Residential. Higher Intensity Residential is described as multi-unit housing with 13 or more units per lot, along with limited ground- floor commercial uses, with building form and height determined by historic and neighborhood context (a maximum building height of five stories is also specified). Affordability and increased intensity in this district are emphasized to meet Affordable Housing Plan goals. The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Property to PUD to accommodate multi-family housing units that are not currently allowed in the R-1 district. The proposed uses however do conform to the categories identified in the 2021 Future Land Use Map. Fifty multi-family apartment units, along with a 45-space parking lot would be constructed to the rear of the existing church use. The existing church sanctuary and preschool buildings and their associated parking lot would remain intact and unchanged. According to the Development Plan Use Matrix (Attachment C) residential uses permitted within the PUD would be more intensive than current R-1 uses, although related residential and non-residential uses would be more restrictive. Multifamily units, surface parking lots (more than 20 spaces), daycare facilities smaller than 8,000 sq. ft, and outdoor parks/playgrounds/ball fields/swimming pools on private property would be added as by- right or ancillary uses to those currently allowed under R-1 zoning for the subject property. Accessory apartments, radio antennas, homestays, convent/monasteries, family day homes, private clubs, educational facilities, and City-owned clubs or parks would not be allowed on the subject property. The existing church use currently contains no residential dwelling units. Should the rezoning be approved, the overall density for the site will be around 7 DUA. Proposed buildings vary in height but do not exceed the five story limit Higher Intensity Residential. Page 6 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Streets that Work Plan: The applicants are proposing proffered improvements to Cutler Lane and Park Street, including removing vegetation and fencing to improve sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the property, and installing right-turn-only directional curb island for the entrance to the PUD to prevent left turns from the site onto Cutler Lane. A pedestrian crosswalk across Park Street is also proposed near the intersection of Cutler Lane and Park Street which would consist of high-visibility and ADA-compliant design. For traffic and pedestrian volume analysis supporting the installation of a sidewalk, see Attachment E. The developer wishes to extend a new private driveway as depicted in their conceptual plans to connect the parking area for the new multi-family units to Cutler Lane. A 5’ sidewalk is proposed along this driveway to connect the existing sidewalk along Cutler Lane to the parking area. As part of the Commission’s review of this application, the Commission should consider whether the proposed driveway layout would be substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Streets that Work Plan notes the highest priority design elements for Neighborhood A Streets are sidewalks with a minimum of five (5) to six (6) feet of clear zone and bicycle facilities such as 5 feet bike lanes and 6 feet climbing lanes. Staff believes the proposed private drive off Cutler Lane would generally meet these criteria. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: The applicants are proposing a proffered pedestrian trail easement, as generally depicted in their conceptual plans, connecting the Cutler Lane sidewalk with existing trails on the property that provide access to the nearby Rivanna Trail along Meadow Creek. The rezoning application for the subject property was accompanied by a sidewalk waiver for the property’s frontage on Park Street. Currently sidewalk on Park Street only extends for around 180 feet past the intersection with Cutler Lane; the remaining eastern shoulder of Park Street down to the intersection with Melbourne Road lacks curb and sidewalk, although a sidewalk is present on the western shoulder of the road. Upon discussion with City staff, the applicants elected to postpone consideration of the sidewalk waiver until after the rezoning is approved. Although proposed development plans do not show a sidewalk, sidewalk would be required as part of the site plan review process unless a waiver is granted by City Council. City staff strongly feel that a sidewalk is desired for this property, as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies Park Street as an important local corridor connecting to proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Rio Road, and the extension of shared use lanes on Park Street as a high priority. Additional sidewalk along Park Street would complement future improvements and improve connectivity between Page 7 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Park Street Christian Church and the nearest bus stop (CAT Route 11), located around 400 feet north of the intersection of Park Street and Cutler Lane. 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-1 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 prevalent in this area of the City, while preserving substantial existing forested space. Sec. 34-42(a)(3): Whether there is a need and justification for the change. According to the City’s 2021 Future Land Use Map, this area of the City should accommodate Higher Density Residential uses, particularly multi-family units with 13 or more units per lot. The proposed PUD would significantly increase the intensity of the Subject Parcel and add multi-family residential housing to the existing church and childcare uses. However, the proposed changes are targeted towards providing affordable housing units identified as a priority in the 2021 Comprehensive Plan and 2020 Affordable Housing Plan. Based on the application materials presented, staff are of the opinion that the proposed development would further the PUD Objectives in Sec. 34-490 and promote the public welfare, convenience, and good zoning practice. 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 properties would be evaluated during site plan review and need to meet all current regulations related to public utilities and facilities. Due to the location of the subject properties, staff believes all public services and facilities would be adequate to support 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. Consisting of low-density residential areas. Page 8 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD 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; Staff finds the development of multi-family buildings at this location, with the architectural features and sizes proposed, would be equal in quality to multi-family structures located in other areas of the City that are by-right. A similar quantity of multi-family units could be achieved by rezoning to an existing district (like R-3). Staff does find that the preservation of trees and provision of trails within the Project Area introduce elements that are of a higher quality than a new subdivision of single-family homes under the R-1 standards, or construction of multi-family units under City standards within an R-3 zoning at this location. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. Staff does find the proposed multi-family units to be and efficient in their integration of existing woodlands and inclusion of pedestrian pathways, although the proposal is not particularly innovative in terms of 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; The developer is proposing solely multi-family apartments within this development. Units will include from one to three bedrooms and will be offered exclusively as affordable housing for senior citizens. 4. To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; The development plan indicates the apartment units will be clustered in a way that will preserve some existing open space and reduce sight lines from neighboring properties. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; The proposed development is planned as a single project linking affordable senior apartments with the existing church and childcare uses as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Page 9 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD 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 development is comparable in use and scale to other multi-family apartment complexes located to the west along Park Street. Site grading and preservation of existing tree cover will screen the proposed multi-family units almost entirely from neighboring single-family residential areas. 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. The proposed multi-family units are clustered together to preserve the remainder of the property as open or wooded space. 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 the proposed apartments would be architecturally similar, and would complement the existing church buildings and the surrounding built environment. 9. To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; Planted walkways and open space would provide linkages between the proposed apartment units. Residents of the development and the neighborhood would have access to preserved open space and the Rivanna Trail via the proposed pedestrian trails. The proposed sidewalk across Park Street would increase pedestrian access to the nearby CAT bus stop. 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single- vehicle-alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. Public 5’ sidewalks are proposed along internal roads to provide pedestrian access to and from the property. Bicycle access is provided by the proposed public streets along with the proposed bike and trail easement to the 250 Bypass sidewalk. No bus route currently serves this property. The applicant is proposing the rezoning in conjunction with a critical slope waiver. The applicant is also proposing certain proffers related to the development. Page 10 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Summary of Proffers: The proffered development conditions include: (1) Affordable Housing: (a) The Owner shall cause one hundred percent (100%) of the residential units built on the Subject Property to be affordable dwelling units (ADUs), as defined below. (b) Affordability for rental dwelling units shall be defined as dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Area Medium Income and that are committed to remain affordable for not less than thirty (30) years from the date of the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for multi-family buildings on the Subject Property. Should any units be for-sale units, the affordability period for each of such units shall be not less than forty (40) years from the date conveyed to its first resident owner(s). (c) The affordability covenants of subparagraph (b) shall be recorded in the City land records as deed restrictions in form and substance consistent with the requirements of Virginia Housing as to each affected lot or parcel. (2) Transportation Improvements: Prior to the approval of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit, the Applicant shall (a) remove vegetation on the Subject Property to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the Subject Property to turn onto Cutler Lane; and (b) install a right out only direction curb island to permit right turn only out of the Project driveway onto Cutler Lane. The Owner shall grant a sight distance easement to the City of Charlottesville upon request by the City. (3) Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Easement: At the request of the City, and which may be a condition to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the Owner shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the grantee, a permanent fifteen-foot (15’) wide pedestrian trail easement in the general locations shown on the Application Plan, as will be more fully determined during site planning and depicted on the final, approved site plan for the Project and on the subdivision plat or separate easement plat, to provide public pedestrian access to the Rivanna Trail. (4) Park Street Crossing: At the request of the City, and which may be a condition to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, the Owner shall provide a pedestrian street crossing at the southern intersection of Cutler Lane and Park Street, consisting of high-visibility pavement markings, ADA curb ramps, and advanced signage. Page 11 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Residential Use (by-Right) R-1 PUD Accessory buildings, structures and uses B Adult assisted living B Amateur radio antennas, to a height of 75 ft. B Bed-and-breakfast Homestay B Dwellings: Single-family attached Dwellings: Single-family detached B B Dwellings: Two-family Dwellings: Townhouse Dwellings: Multifamily B Residential Density – Max. 21 DUA B Family day home 1 – 5 Children B Residential Occupancy 3 unrelated persons B B Residential Occupancy 4 unrelated persons B B Residential Treatment Facility 1 – 8 residents B Non-Residential Use (by-Right) R-1 PUD Houses of worship B B Attached facilities utilizing utility poles as the attachment B B structure Attached facilities not visible from any adjacent street or B B property Daycare facility <8,000 sq. ft. S B Libraries B Surface parking lot (20 or fewer spaces) A Surface parking lot (>20 spaces) A Temporary parking facilities A Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; swimming club; yoga B B studios; dance studios, skating rinks, recreation centers, etc. (on City, School Board, or other public property) Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; swimming club; yoga B B studios; dance studios, skating rinks, recreation centers, etc. (on private property, GFA of 4,000 sq. ft. or less) Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball courts, B swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc. (city owned), and related concession stands Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball courts, S B swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc. (private) Utility lines B B Page 12 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD Zoning History of the Subject Property Year Zoning District 1949 n/a (Albemarle County) 1958 n/a (Albemarle County) 1976 R-1 Residential 1991 R-1 Residential 2003 R-1 Residential The Subject Property is bordered by: Direction Use Zoning North Open Space, Single-Family Residences (Albemarle County) (PRD) South Single-Family Residences R-1 East Single-Family Residences R-1 West Multi-Family Residences R-3 Staff finds the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s 2021 Future Land Use Plan Map for density, use and housing type. The development may contribute to other goals within the Land Use and Housing chapters of the 2021 Comprehensive Plan. Staff also finds the type of use, multi-family residential, would be consistent with the existing development pattern in this area. Site grading and preserved tree cover adequately separates the higher intensity uses from existing single family development on Cutler Lane. 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 10, 2021 the applicant held a community meeting virtually and in-person at Charlottesville High School. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. Forty-six members of the public attended the meeting and voiced the following concerns: • Increased traffic on Park Street and Cutler Lane will be a problem. • Traffic counts provided in the traffic study are not considered accurate. • New development north of Park Street will increase future traffic near this site. Page 13 of 14 ZM21-00004 Park Street Christian Church PUD • Concern over adequate parking for vehicles visiting the new apartment units. • Concern over increased stormwater runoff and flooding related to the new construction. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials could contribute to many goals within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The uses presented in the proposed development are consistent with adopted 2021 Future Land Use Map. As presented in the application, staff finds the PUD to be desirable as to preserving tree cover and increasing housing diversity and affordability. Staff has concerns about sidewalk construction and the granting of a sidewalk waiver for this site, but otherwise recommends approval of this rezoning with the included proffers. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM21-0003, including the critical slope waiver requested in P21-00126, on the basis that the streets proposed 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 ZM21-00003. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Dated September 1, 2021 B. Proffer Statement Dated November 15, 2021 C. PSCC PUD Development Plan Dated November 15, 2021 D. PSCC PUD Supplemental Information Packet Dated November 15, 2021 E. Park Street Pedestrian Crossing Analysis Dated June 24, 2021 F. Traffic Impact Analysis for PHA Residential Developments on Park Street (shared traffic study for both MACAA and Park Street Church PUDS, Dated September 2021) G. Critical Slope Waiver Request for Park Street Christian Church PUD (P21-00126) • Staff Report • Application • Supplemental Materials • Critical Slope Exhibit Page 14 of 14 Attachment A Sunshine Mathon 09/01/2021 PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE Sunshine Mathon 09/01/2021 Executive Director PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE Sunshine Mathon 09/01/2021 Executive Director TRUSTEE PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE Sunshine Mathon 09/01/2021 Executive Director Trustees of Park Street Christian Church: Paul Titus Paul Johnson Stan Johnson Art Stow Mike Davis Brian Day David Woodward Attachment B DRAFT 11/15/2021 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM-21-xxxxxx) STATEMENT OF PROFFER CONDITIONS TAX MAP PARCEL (TMP) 470002120 ZMA Number and Name: 2021-00_____ PHA-PSCC REDEVELOPMENT Subject Property: TMP 470002120 (1200 Park Street) Owner: Park Street Christian Church Applicant: Piedmont Housing Authority (PHA) Date of Proffer Signature: _______________ _____, 2021 ZMA Request: 7.433 acres to be rezoned from R-1 Residential to Planned Unit Development TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: The undersigned is the Owner of land subject to the above-referenced rezoning petition (the “Subject Property”). The Owner, represented by the rezoning applicant, Piedmont Housing Authority (the “Applicant”), seeks to amend the current zoning of the Subject Property to Planned Unit Development (PUD), subject to certain voluntary development conditions set forth below, in order to develop affordable housing on the Subject Property (the “Project”). The Owner hereby proffers and agrees that, if the Subject Property is rezoned as requested, the Subject Property will be developed in general accordance with, and the Owner will abide by, the approved Park Street Christian Church Property Senior Affordable Housing Planned Unit Development Application, dated September 3, 2021, last revised __________ (the “Application Plan”), and that the Subject Property shall also be subject the following conditions: 1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: (a) The Owner shall cause one hundred percent (100%) of the residential units built on the Subject Property to be affordable dwelling units (ADUs), as defined below. (b) Affordability for rental dwelling units shall be defined as dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Area Medium 1 Income and that are committed to remain affordable for not less than thirty (30) years from the date of the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for multi-family buildings on the Subject Property. Should any units be for-sale units, the affordability period for each of such units shall be not less than forty (40) years from the date conveyed to its first resident owner(s). (c) The affordability covenants of subparagraph (b) shall be recorded in the City land records as deed restrictions in form and substance consistent with the requirements of Virginia Housing as to each affected lot or parcel. 2. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to the approval of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit, the Applicant shall (a) remove vegetation on the Subject Property to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the Subject Property to turn onto Cutler Avenue; and (b) install a right out only direction curb island to permit right turn only out of the Project driveway onto Cutler Avenue. The Owner shall grant a sight distance easement to the City of Charlottesville upon request by the City. 3. PEDESTRIAN TRAILS: At the request of the City, and which may be a condition to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the Owner shall dedicate to the City, at no cost to the grantee, a permanent fifteen-foot (15’) wide pedestrian trail easement in the general locations shown on the Application Plan, as will be more fully determined during site planning and depicted on the final, approved site plan for the Project and on the subdivision plat or separate easement plat, to provide public pedestrian access to the Rivanna Trail. 4. PARK STREET CROSSING: At the request of the City, and which may be a condition to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, the Owner shall provide a pedestrian street crossing at the southern intersection of Cutler Avenue and Park Street, consisting of high-visibility pavement markings, ADA curb ramps, and advanced signage. (Signature Page Immediately Follows) 2 WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner stipulates and agrees that the use and development of the Subject Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated and request that the Subject Property be rezoned as requested, in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. Respectfully submitted this _____ day of _______, 2021. OWNER: PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH By: __________________________ Name: ________________________ Title: _________________________ PHA - PSCC Rezoning Proffers Submission 11-15-2021 Clean(46483204.1) 3 Attachment C PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1200 PARK STREET CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Sheet List Table TABLE OF CONTENTS 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. Sheet Number Sheets 34-517 (1)a A SURVEY PLAT DESCRIBING AND DEPICTING THE ENTIRE LAND AREA TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE 0 COVER PUD DEVELOPMENT SITE, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF PRESENT OWNERSHIP, EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION(S) OF THE PARCEL(S) TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PUD. (1)a-(1)b EXISTING CONDITIONS 34-517 (2)a A NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF HOW THE OBJECTIVES DESCRIBED WITHIN SECTION 34-490 ARE MET BY THE PROPOSED PUD. (2)a-(2)h NARRATIVE 34-517 (3)a A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUPPORTING MAPS, AND WRITTEN OR PHOTOGRAPHIC DATA AND ANALYSIS WHICH SHOW: (3)a-(3)c CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ETC. A. LOCATION AND SIZE OF EXISTING WATER AND SANITARY AND STORM SEWER FACILITIES AND EASEMENTS; B. LAYOUT FOR PROPOSED WATER AND SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES AND STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES; (4)a-(4)b LAND USE PLAN C. LOCATION OF OTHER PROPOSED UTILITIES; (5)a LANDSCAPE PLAN D. LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT;LOCATION AND -- PROFFERS SIZE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED STREETS; E. LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING TOTAL # OF SHEETS: 19 CONNECTIONS TO NEARBY SCHOOLS; 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. 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. 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; B. PROPOSED DENSITIES OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; C. LOCATION AND ACREAGE OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE; D. SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES; E. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN AREA OF PUD. 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; 34-517(6)a A PHASING PLAN IF NEEDED. EACH PHASE SHALL INDIVIDUALLY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION. 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). 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). COVER PAGE 0 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 Revised - November 15, 2021 *LIST RECEIVED FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE NDS 500' RADIUS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES 500' RADIUS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES PAGE (1)a 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 CITY PID 4700 01200 41 6 41 EXISTING CRITICAL ARTMEN T P 420 FOR THE 370 BURRUSS AP ION G EASEMENT CORPORAT OH 5 VARIABLE W IDTH GRADIN EALTH OF VIRGINIA SLOPES PER ORD. D.B . 24 0, PG . 27 COMM ON W D.B. 420, PG. 736 #1223-1227 PA RK ST 425 5 MEADOW (34-1120(b)(2)) 36 P CREEK OH 426 390 41 P 0 OH 40 0 430 350 O HP 0 42 420 434 42 TIVE PUBLIC 02120 P 15' PRESCRIP CITY PID 4700 HURCH (DISCIPLES OF 435 0 OH EASEME NT . TC H R IS TI A N C SEE NOTE 4. PARK STREE 43 CHRIST) OUNTY) E OF NAME, C )43 42 436 0 5 HA N G 2 43 1 (C 42 D.B. 348, PG. PG. 520 (VESTING, COUNTY 5 440 D.B. 335, (SURVEYED) 424 7.433 ACRES : R-1 ZONING 394 CHAIN LINK 42 OH . FENCE 4' HT 444 438 4 P 44 445 0 444 X AR 5 X 34 42 36" POPL 44 410 35 OH 448 6 8 42 5 P 30" POPLAR 6 SWING-SET 6" (2) 450 PLAY ET 4" 427 DOGWOOD SET DOGWOOD ROCK 452 X 450 E N TRE ARMOR OH 448 450 X 4) 400 0 P 5 CHAIN LINK 44 44 OTE SAND BOX . FENCE 4' HT 31" OAK 454 S 430 455 36 OH 45 K LTW 454 36 4 24" DEC 0 MHS HVAC (SE PAR P 37 (UNDER) TOP=452.11 5 GRAVEL 455 37 4" CLAY (NE) 0 INV IN=448.99 4" CLAY (SE) X 24" 38 7 5 INV OUT= 44 8.9 DEC 38 0 5 40" 26" DEC 45 #1200B 0 OAK 5 39 1 STORY BRICK 458 460 W/ BSMT. 460 34" OAK ARTMENT S DEC 36" DEC 466465 (2) 462 OHP OHP 60" OAK 41 46 CAPE 445 BRICK LANDS 0 0 AREA GRASS 6" GRASS 467 BENCH POPLAR 36" OAK #1200 G 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66 W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 LSA 0 460 4LS 0 A 438 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 T 4 456 30" OHP 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 SA 2 446 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 40 N 5 439 450 452 5 46 443 HP 442 466 455 O 465 G 450 36" OAK 1 438 43 468 46 468 OHP 43 7 6" MAPLE 44 440 0 420 44 44 8 P OH 5 0 44 OH 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE SA 42" OAK 4" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 4 10" MAPLE 3" MAPLE 430 6 N (2) 46 44 (2) 8 S X OHP OH O HP 465 P P X 442 OH S 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 452 440 X OH 460 CITY PID 4700ADIE 455 450 PARAMES S 446 P T. NO . 50' R/W INS 2018000033 LOT 3 CITY PID 4 47000 ELIZAB #631 CUTLER LN LOT 2 CITY PID 47A1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SCALE 1"=50' PAGE (1)b 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 50' 100' Revised - November 15, 2021 D NA Introduction serves as a fellowship and gathering space for the Church social occasions and meetings. When chairs and tables are rearranged, this single space The development of affordable housing on a wooded and open site in serves many uses, including a neighborhood meeting space when the the Locust Grove neighborhood provides a unique opportunity to address need arises. The current site has ample open space and a significant the City’s affordable housing needs while taking advantage of the unique sloped wooded area with a path that goes through the woods behind the natural features and shared open space of the sloping landscape. The existing buildings toward the Rivanna Trail at the bottom of the hill to the following pages hope to illustrate a site sensitive infill proposal under north of the property. the City’s PUD rezoning process that recognizes the scale of adjacent existing homes, combines Church, Preschool, and new senior housing units into an intergenerational ‘campus’, reduces the visual impact of the apartments Project Background trail size and places the new apartments on the site to take advantage of the wooded areas. An emphasis on connectivity and shared open PSCC has partnered with Piedmont Housing Alliance to pursue a concept spaces ensures this property will continue to be an active and integrated of infill affordable senior housing, which includes a mix of bedroom unit extension of the adjacent neighborhood. types in one affordable rental multifamily building below the Church buildings along Park Street to create a cohesive development plan. This project is the result of a unique partnership between Park Street Piedmont Housing Alliance is the primary developer and applicant for the Christian Church and Piedmont Housing Alliance. Each partner brings PUD rezoning. to the table a mission focused on serving broader community needs open In 1976, the Montessori School of Charlottesville (located at 631 Cutler space including affordable housing for seniors (age 55+) and individuals with disabilities. While senior housing is the general intent, other residents Lane) was granted a special use permit to operate as a private school. under the age of 55 (living with a head of household 55 years or older) or In the late 1990s, the Church sought permission to open a child care disabled residents (not meeting the targeted age) will also be welcomed to center on their property as well. The original SUP was amended in 1998 to further the project goals related to creating an intergenerational campus include restrictions on the number of children enrolled at both Montessori and addressing critical community needs. As financing options become and the PSCC preschool. Currently, Montessori can have no more than EXISTING SITE DIAGRAM SHOWING WOODED AREAS WITH CRITICAL SLOPES (ORANGE) AND WITHOUT more defined in the coming months, the partners will pursue funding 57 students and PSCC can have no more than 30 students. (For clarity, CRITICAL SLOPES (GREEN) sources that allow enough flexibility to ensure that residences remain please note…the Montessori School of Charlottesville (located at 631 affordable for these targeted groups. Cutler Lane) is not on Church property, is not operated by the Church, and EXISTING TRAILS SHOWN IN LIGHT GREEN LINEWORK is an independent business. As such, they are not a partner in this PUD effort and are not included in the PUD application. No changes to their operations are requested or implied by this application, we simply mention Description of Property their adjacent use as the two childcare businesses currently share a Special Use Permit.) The proposed PUD rezoning includes one parcel on Park Street north of the 250 bypass and adjacent to Cutler Lane, located at 1200 Park Street The proposed PUD development plan addresses the major goals of the (Park Street Christian Church – “PSCC”). The PSCC site is on 7.433 acres Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan with particular respect to housing, of land and is currently zoned R-1. The PSCC site is owned by the Park community facilities, land use, and environment, and addresses the need Street Christian Church, and currently houses the Church, the Church’s for greater affordability within our community in a way that is sensitive to preschool program, and staff offices. neighborhood context. Park Street Christian Church was built in the 1960s and consists of two one-story brick buildings occupying a prominent position at the top of Cutler Lane. The Church has a preschool located in the smaller building, while church services and offices are in the main building. The primary building serves not only as the sanctuary and church office, but it also PROJECT NARRATIVE Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)a Project Impact and Mitigation Measures Finally, community members raised issues of pedestrian safety and access The project team has engaged community members, city staff, and the City to the sidewalk along the west side of Park Street. The project team of Charlottesville Planning Commission in a series of meetings prior to this proposes a painted crosswalk at the intersection of Park St. and Cutler submission in order to identify potential impacts of the project. Lane to allow pedestrians to safely cross Park Street and access sidewalks and existing transit routes. Piedmont Housing Alliance convened an initial community meeting for neighborhood residents on July 21st, 2021 at the Park Street Christian Traffic on Cutler Lane and Wilder Drive Church. This meeting provided an opportunity to introduce the project and receive feedback prior to entering the process mandated by the City. The Residents also reported high traffic volumes on Cutler Lane and Wilder project team then held an official community meeting at Charlottesville Drive associated with rush hour traffic and vehicles navigating through the High School on August 10th, 2021, and held a Planning Commission neighborhood to turn onto Park Street using the light at Park Street and worksession on August 24th, 2021. In addition, the project team received North Avenue. initial comments from some City staff on August 27th, 2021. Some residents preferred an entrance located on Park Street; however, t the proposed connection at Cutler Lane is the most feasible option. Park Stree Through the community process, comments centered around five key areas of concern: The existing grade change along Park Street is simply too steep to meet minimum entrance requirements and would come at the expense of the • Traffic on Park Street tree canopy, increased disturbance to critical slopes, and ADA accessibility • Traffic on Cutler Lane and Wilder Drive challenges. • Preservation of Tree Canopy 3.Dr • Impacts to waterways The PUD proposes a right-turn-only condition exiting the development onto rer ivew n ou ay rL • Visual impact Cutler Lane to discourage drivers from passing through the neighborhood ted tle to North Avenue to mitigate the traffic impact (figure 1). Cu The project team has worked to address these concerns and mitigate 2. right potential project impacts in the following ways: Preservation of Tree Canopy turn only Traffic on Park Street Residents expressed concerns that the proposal would result in significant 1.proposed loss of tree canopy. The project team has worked to site the development intersection Traffic on Park Street has long been a concern for neighbors around the in a way that minimizes visual impact on the existing neighborhood by improvements Dr project. While the completion of the John W. Warner Parkway in 2015 locating new buildings behind existing buildings. As a result some tree er ild substantially reduced vehicle traffic along Park Street, residents report canopy will be lost; however, the design attempts to preserve as many W volumes have been slowly increasing over time. Therefore residents have trees as possible along Park Street along critical slopes on the north side expressed concern that additional traffic generated by the project will of the site. After receiving comments in the initial community meeting, the negatively impact traffic flows along Park Street. project team rerouted the entrance driveway to preserve large trees on the Cutler Lane side of the site. (figure 1). At the direction of the City traffic engineer, Timmons Group performed a No traffic study of the Project to understand potential impacts and found the Impacts to Waterways rth project will not reduce intersection performance below acceptable levels. Av e The Planning Commission as well as some community members Aside from issues of traffic volumes, vegetation at the intersection of emphasized that development should not negatively impact downstream Park Street and Cutler Lane create limited sight distance. The project waterways. The project team will work in the site planning process to team proposes trimming brush and leaves during construction in order to comply with all state regulatory requirements and stormwater design increase sight distance. standards to mitigate potential impacts. Existing Church Buildings Figure 1 New Affordable Housing Affordable Senior Housing Designed Connection Park Street Christian Church property Trees Noted by Neighbors September 3, 2021 1. Responses to Neighbors' Concerns Revised November 15, 2021 (2)b Visual Impact The project team received comments relating to views of the proposed buildings, suggesting that they would negatively impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The project team designed the proposal so that the massing of the apartment building would not visually overwhelm the existing church and sited it to take advantage of the natural topography and tree canopy (figure 2). As a result, the three-story structure with a basement is in keeping with the visual scale of the surrounding context (Architectural Supplement – View From Top Of Cutler Lane; View From Cutler Lane; View From Cutler Ln & Park St Intersection; and View From Park Street) PARK STREET PROPOSED BUILDING PROPOSED PARKING CHURCH CHURCH CHURCH CUTLER LANE LOCATION PRESCHOOL SANCTUARY PARKING Figure 2 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)c Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan Through the PUD Rezoning process, Piedmont Housing Alliance and PSCC are committed to a development plan that aligns with the City of Charlottesville’s strategic goals, as well as the partner organizations’ goals to advance equity within the Charlottesville community. The proposal meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Comprehensive Plan Goal 1 – Land Use Comprehensive Plan Goal 2 – Community Facilities Vision: The use of land in Charlottesville supports human The proposed development makes use of a sloping site north of Vision: The City of Charlottesville’s civic facilities and services The proposed development aims to meet or exceed performance activities and reflects community values. Our land use plan aims downtown Charlottesville and its core residential neighborhoods are important to fostering a healthy and vibrant community. standards set by city agencies and for fire and other emergency to promote harmonious development and support neighborhoods to create affordable housing options for seniors at a scale Residents benefit from access to excellent public services, services. and places that allow residents to live, work, shop and play in and density that is compatible with neighboring uses. This recreational facilities and public buildings. Therefore, proximity. Charlottesville’s land use patterns will create, preserve, site occupies a unique location on the edge of a hill between Charlottesville will have outstanding civic and recreational In addition, the proposal aims to link to a network of and enhance neighborhood character, improve environmental the single-family scale of the Locust Grove neighborhood and facilities, bicycle and walking trails and be served by a strong greenspaces, trails, and pedestrian infrastructure. quality, integrate a diversity of uses, encourage various modes the multi-family scale of a variety of developments along the support system that includes one of the nation’s best emergency of transportation, promote infill development, and increase immediate adjacencies of Park Street. The location of the response systems. Effective and efficient water, wastewater and commercial vitality and density in appropriate areas. These new housing uses the slope of the hill and the existing Church stormwater services will support the health and welfare of the interdependent parts will converge to enhance the social, buildings to reduce visibility of the new senior housing from the City. cultural, recreational and economic needs of our City Locust Grove neighborhood and the wooded slopes to shield Goal 1 - Continue to Provide Excellent Fire Protection Service and The proposal will conform to fire codes and regulations to provide views from Park Street. Fire Prevention Education Service to the City, the University of access to emergency services which will not impede their Goal 1 – Enhance the Sense of Place Throughout Charlottesville The proposed development preserves much of the topography, Virginia, and Portions of Albemarle County and Goal 2 - Continue response time. tree plantings, and open spaces which characterize this To Provide Excellent Rescue Service To The Charlottesville And large parcel and are enjoyed by the neighbors. The proposed Albemarle Community. development also maintains the visual character and uses along Goal 4 - Solid Waste The proposed project will participate in solid waste and recycling the neighborhood edge of Locust Grove at Cutler Lane. programs, and will encourage recycling where possible. Goal 2 – Establish a mix of uses within walking distance of The proposed development will contain a single residential residential neighborhoods that will enhance opportunities for building in keeping with the provisions of the proposed Goal 5 - Improve The Water System Infrastructure To Provide The project proposes to use the City of Charlottesville’s water small group interaction throughout Charlottesville Future Land Use Plan in proximity to the existing church and Reliable, Healthy And Efficient Water Service To City Residents infrastructure, and will work to steward that resource where preschool, creating an intergenerational campus where the And Address Increasing Densities Within The City As Part Of Any possible through the use of water conserving technologies. design encourages social interaction and an increased sense Improvements of community. The residential building will include a community Goal 6 - Improve Wastewater Infrastructure To Provide Effective The project proposes to connect to Charlottesville’s wastewater room to serve the residents and neighbors as well. And Efficient Sanitary Sewer Services To Residents, To infrastructure. Stormwater management will be undertaken Goal 3 – Enhance Formal Public Spaces of Community The proposal includes a community green as well as the Accommodate The Zoned And Projected Densities And according to industry best practices. Interaction in Charlottesville that Support the City’s Role as a preservation of open spaces and church-maintained landscapes Uses In The City And To Protect Public Health And Environmental Center of Urban Vitality and gardens which will be accessible to residents as well as Quality. neighbors, providing the opportunity to connect and interact. Goal 4 - Facilitate the Creation of New Opportunities for Regional The proposed project provides a key connection from Locust Goals 7, 8, 9, 10 -- Parks and Recreation [Upgrades and The proposed project identifies a number of opportunities Cooperation on Land Use Issues Grove and North Downtown to regional trail networks. Expansion], Recreational Uses, and Best Practices to preserve open spaces and wooded slopes, and provide Discussions between the Church, PHA, and the Rivanna Trail connections to trails. Foundation are ongoing at the time of this writing. Goal 5 – Explore Progressive and Innovative Land Use, Design The rezoning proposal makes use of the City of Charlottesville’s Standards, and Zoning Regulations to Accomplish the City’s Planned Unit Development tool to provide affordable housing Vision along different financial and spatial models aside from what is allowed by the by-right zoning. Gathering spaces sense of acommodate community within the immediate property and allow for trail connections within and through the site to the broader neighborhood beyond. Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)d Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan Through the PUD Rezoning process, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, and MACAA are committed to a development plan which aligns with the City of Charlottesville’s strategic goals, as well as the partner organization’s goals to advance equity within the Charlottesville community. The proposal meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Comprehensive Plan Goal 3 – Economic Sustainability Comprehensive Plan Goal 4 – Environment Vision: A strong economy is essential to the social, cultural and The proposed development is a significant investment in the City Vision: The City of Charlottesville will be a green city, with The proposed project aims to meet high standards of financial vitality of our city. Public and private initiatives of Charlottesville, providing jobs in the design, construction, and clean and healthy air and water, sustainable neighborhoods, environmental performance within the construction of its help create employment opportunities and a vibrant and operations of the project. ample open space and natural areas that balance increased multifamily dwelling, targeting the Passive House standard as a sustainable economy. The City of Charlottesville is committed to development and density in residential and economic centers, design goal. The project also aims to minimize disturbance to the creating a strong, diversified economy and an environment that and walkable, bikeable and transit-supportive land use patterns natural assets of the site. provides career ladder employment opportunities for residents. that encourage healthy lifestyles. Goal 1 - Value The Rivanna River As A Major Asset In The Life Of The project enhances trail connections to Meadow Creek, At its best, Charlottesville is a community with an effective Our City And Region And Restore It To A Healthy Condition Within which flows into the Rivanna. By improviong access to this workforce development system and a businessfriendly Our Ecosystem In Order To Improve crucial resource, the project contributes to greater visibility and environment that supports entrepreneurship; innovation; Habitat, Watershed Health And Water Quality. importance for the natural waterways within Charlottesville. heritage tourism; commercial, mixed use, and infill development; and access to a growing array of diverse employment and career Goal 2 - Promote Practices Throughout The City That Contribute The project will minimize impacts to existing tree canopy. ladder opportunities for all City residents. The Downtown Mall, as To A Robust Urban Forest. the economic hub of the region, features a vibrant historic district with arts and entertainment, shopping, dining, cultural events Goal 3 - Protect, Increase, And Provide An Interconnected System The project will provide access and connections to a broader and a dynamic City Market. Of Green Space And Buffers That Support Habitat For Wildlife, system of trails and natural systems. Improve Water Quality, And Deliver Valuable Ecosystem Services. Goal 4 - Improve Public And Private Stormwater Infrastructure The proposed project will include a system of stormwater While Protecting And Restoring Stream Ecosystems.* management which will meet performance standards and best practices. Goal 5 - Encourage High Performance, Green Building Standards The multifamily building will target Passive House standards, And Practices And The Use Of The U.S. which are among the most rigorous performance standards for Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED Certification Program, energy efficiency within the building industry. Passive House Earthcraft, Energy Star Or Other Similar Systems.* standards will significantly reduce the building demand for and Goal 6 - Promote Effective And Innovative Energy And heating and cooling, leading to large reductions in the building's Fuel Management In Both City And Community Buildings And energy consumption. In addition, the new housing will seek grant Operations.* funding to include roof-mounted solar panels to further reduce need for offsite energy from fossil fuels. Goal 7 - Promote Citywide Water Efficiency And Conservation And The proposed development will reduce water consumption and Implement Water Efficiency And Conservation Strategies In City waste generation through building design and operations. Buildings And Operations.* and Goal 8 - Promote And Implement Strategies To Reduce Waste Generation And Increase Recycling, Composting, And Waste Diversion To Decrease Environmental Impacts, Including Greenhouse Gas Emissions.* Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)e Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan Through the PUD Rezoning process, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, and MACAA are committed to a development plan which aligns with the City of Charlottesville’s strategic goals, as well as the partner organization’s goals to advance equity within the Charlottesville community. The proposal meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 – Housing Comprehensive Plan Goal 5 – Housing (cont.) Vision: The quality and diversity of the City of Charlottesville’s The proposed project creates a diversity of affordable housing Goal 8 - Ensure That The City’s Housing Portfolio Offers A Wide The proposal provides housing choices not readily available housing stock creates the basis for viable neighborhoods and a options for families at a range of income levels from 30 to 80% Range Of Choices That Are Integrated And Balanced Across The within Charlottesville, namely affordable rental. thriving community. In order to be of area median income, including affordable rental apartment City To Meet Multiple Goals Including: a truly world class city, Charlottesville must provide sufficient homes for seniors. Increased Sustainability, Walkability, Bikeability, And Use Of The project has been developed holistically, aiming to meet goals housing options to ensure safe, appealing, Public Transit, Augmented Support For Families With Children, around affordability, sustainability, and community with a mix of environmentally sustainable and affordable housing for all The homes will be within a short distance from downtown, and Fewer Pockets Of Poverty, Sustained Local Commerce And unit sizes surrounded by maintained and natural landscapes. population segments and income levels, including middle will be connected to a system of greenspaces and other public Decreased Student Vehicle Use.* income. Consequently, City neighborhoods will feature a variety of amenities. housing types, housing sizes, and incomes all within convenient walking, biking or transit distances of enhanced community The development will be constructed to a high level of quality amenities that include mixed use, barrier free, higher density, – the standards for Low Income Housing Tax Credit-funded pedestrian and transit-oriented housing at employment and developments such as the rental portion of the project far exceed cultural centers connected to facilities, parks, trails and services. market rate building standards. Goal 1 - Evaluate The Impact Of Housing Decisions On Other The project contributes all of its units to the City’s larger housing City Goals And City Vision With The Understanding That Any affordability goals. As a project seeking Low Income Housing Regulatory Land Use Changes May Affect Housing Because Of Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding, 100% of the units will qualify as The City’s Limited Geographic Size Of Only 10.4 Square Miles. (All affordable to a variety of low-income residents. Such Changes Must Be Considered Within The Context Of City Council’s Goal Of Achieving A Minimum 15% Supported Affordable Housing Throughout The City By 2025.) Goal 2 - Maintain And Improve The City’s Existing Housing Stock The project will provide housing stock that in many cases exceeds For Residents Of All Income Levels.* the standards of existing housing in the area. Goal 3 - Grow The City’s Housing Stock For Residents Of All The proposal expands the housing stock for low-income people, Income Levels.* one of the key areas where more stock is most needed. Goal 4 - Promote An Assortment Of Funding Initiatives To Meet The proposed project is focused on affordable housing at a range The Needs Of Owners, Renters And The Homeless With Varying of income levels. Levels Of Income Goal 5 - Support Projects And Public/Private Partnerships The proposal is the result of a partnership between PHA and Park (I.E Private, Nonprofits, Private Developers And Governmental Street Christian Church, with PHA as the developer and applicant. Agencies) For Affordable Housing, Including Workforce Housing And Mixed-Use, And Mixed-Income Developments. Also, Support Projects That Promote Economic Development And Job Creation, Especially But Not Exclusively, In Relatively Underinvested, Financially Depressed Areas. Goal 7 - Offer A Range Of Housing Options To Meet The Needs The proposal is focused on a range of apartment types with a Of Charlottesville’s Residents, Including Those Presently variety of bedroom count/unit sizes. Underserved, In Order To Create Vibrant Residential Areas Or Reinvigorate Existing Ones.* Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)f Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan Through the PUD Rezoning process, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, and MACAA are committed to a development plan which aligns with the City of Charlottesville’s strategic goals, as well as the partner organization’s goals to advance equity within the Charlottesville community. The proposal meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: Comprehensive Plan Goal 6 – Transportation Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 – Historic Preservation and Urban Design Vision: The City of Charlottesville’s transportation network The project proposes to create a walkable connection to Vision: Urban design and historic preservation contribute to The proposal recognizes the scale of the adjacent neighborhood provides the fundamental framework for creating a safe, livable the nearby trails in McIntire Park by way of the Rivanna Trail the character and quality of neighborhoods, and to the as well as the larger footprint buildings on Park Street and helps community while reinforcing more sustainable land use patterns. connection and the existing sidewalk network on the west side of aesthetic value of the entire community. As a result, the City transition between those different scales through sensitive The system connects people to each other and Park Street. of Charlottesville will be a well-designed community with site planning. The project creates an environment contextually to destinations, fosters economic activity and provides public neighborhoods, buildings, and public spaces, including the consistent with the neighborhood of Locust Grove by using space for human interaction. Downtown Mall, that are human scaled, sustainable, healthy, smaller building footprints for each of the elements in the plan. equitable and beautiful. The building is reduced in visual scale not only by the location on Goal 1 - Increase Safe, Convenient And Pleasant The project will provide pedestrian accommodations to the the site relative to the Church buildings (roofs of the new housing Accommodations For Pedestrians, Bicyclists And building and within the building by use of sidewalks and internal Charlottesville will also seek to preserve its historic resources are comparable in height to Church buildings when viewed from People With Disabilities That Improve Quality Of Life Within The elevator between each floor. All units will meet high standards for through education and collaboration to maintain the character Cutler) but also by interconnected entry and lobby areas between Community And Within Individual Neighborhoods.* accessibility in accordance with the requirements of the Universal of our neighborhoods’ core historic fabric, our major routes of each portion of the building, further reducing the perceived Design Guidelines of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) tourism and our public spaces. footprint of the new building. program. Goal 1 - Continue Charlottesville’s History Of Architectural And The project will include primarily brick veneer facades, which Goal 2 - Improve Transportation Options And Quality Of Life The project links a series of open spaces together with existing Design Excellence By Maintaining Existing Traditional is encouraged by the LIHTC funding process to help reduce Through Land Use And Community Design Techniques open and natural wooded areas to encourage activity outdoors Design Features While Encouraging Creative, Context-Sensitive, maintenance costs in the future. However, this traditional with neighbors. A new crosswalk at Park Street provides access Contemporary Planning And Design. material choice also compliments Charlottesville’s traditional to an existing transit stop on the Southbond side of Park Street. façade treatments. Goal 3 - Improve Mobility And Safety Of The Arterial Roadway The proposal will make visibility improvements to the intersection Goal 2 - Educate Property Owners And Potential Property By preserving the existing the Church sanctuary on site, the Network at Cutler Drive and Park Street; the specific details are under Owners Of Historic Resources About The Significance Of Their project continues to provide a shared neighborhood anchoring study at this time Properties.* use and space. Goal 4 - Maintain An Efficient Transportation System That The proposed project includes a turnaround area for transit Goal 5 - Protect And Enhance The Existing Character, Stability, The proposal provides additional density while remaining Provides The Mobility And Access That Supports The Economic buses within the resident parking spaces to allow shared travel And Scale Of The City’s Older Neighborhoods.* sensitive to the scale of the surrounding context. Development Goals Of The City. from the property to community services and amenities. Goal 6 - Provide Effective Protection To The City Of The project proposes to conserve as much of the landscape Goal 5 - Provide Parking To Adequately Meet Demand And The proposal will meet parking targets that are consistent with Charlottesville’s Historic Resources.* as possible, ensuring that its qualities continue to serve as an Support Economic Vitality Without Sacrificing Aesthetics, actual usage rates at PHA’s other properties. Parking’s impact amenity to the community. While Minimizing Environmental Impacts And Accommodating to the urban fabric has been minimized by relegating the Pedestrians, Bicycles, Transit Users And Disabled Individuals. provided parking from view at Cutler Lane and the Locust Grove Goal 7 - Coordinate The Actions Of Government, The Private The project team will pursue opportunities to partner with other neighborhood proper. Sector, And Nonprofit Organizations To Achieve Preservation And organizations and city agencies to provide paths to the Rivanna Urban Design Goals. Trail. Goal 7 - Continue To Work With Appropriate Governing Bodies To The project team is committed to cooperation with appropriate Create A Robust Regional Transportation Network.* governing bodies as opportunities arise. Goal 8 - Develop A Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure The project is incorporating vehicular travel patterns to improve By Designing, Constructing, Installing, Using And Maintaining safety for existing traffic to the Church’s preschool and Locust The City’s Transportation Assets And Equipment In Efficient, Grove neighbors as well as for new PHA residents. The project Innovative And Environmentally Responsible Ways. will provide trail connections from the residential and church buildings to the Rivanna Trail. JAUNT will serve the residents with door-to-door transportation, and the project sits within two blocks of a transit stop on Charlottesville Area Transit’s Route 11. The proposal includes a new crosswalk at Park Street to improve pedestrian connection to the transit stop. Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)g Alignment with the Planned Unit Development District Objectives The project on the MACAA site fulfills the primary objectives of the Planned Unit Development District designation by proposing a form of development which is more contextual, appropriate, and compact than would otherwise be possible under current zoning. Planned Unit Development District Primary Objectives — Sec. 34-490 (1) To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than The proposal introduces affordable housing on currently unused (8) To provide for coordination of architectural styles internally The architectural aesthetic aims to formally and texturally relate otherwise required by the strict application of land within a wooded area, close to major roads and CAT bus within the development as well as in relation to to surrounding buildings, while also introducing conveniences zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; stop. The LIHTC requirements for the building will necessitate adjacent properties along the perimeter of the development; and amenities typical of multifamily buildings (including a high quality and durable construction for a higher standard community meeting room and support spaces for gathering than surrounding buildings. Moreover, the Applicant and Church activities and/or fitness.) Large unit windows and semi- intend to direct the affordable housing units toward seniors transparent linking ‘bridges’ make the buildings more porous and (head of household 55+) and individuals with intellectual and light than they would otherwise be. developmental disabilities; however, they will not be able to (9) To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings A long aisle of planted walkway and open space adjacent to the commit to the final makeup of residents at this time given and uses, and external connections, at a new housing buffers and organizes the new building, providing financing contingencies. scale appropriate to the development and adjacent shade in the summer and delineating the 'access zone' from (2) To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and The project takes what would be a large massing and breaks it neighborhoods; the parking. In addition, a series of perpendicular planted and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible, and down into a series of dwelling unit 'groups' that are connected open links to the church grounds allow for future development of environmentally sensitive design by a semi-opaque lobbies and entry areas. The rhythm of the these visual connections. The project will include a public access spacing of these groups of dwellings allows the site to create easement over existing and future pedestrian trails leading to the a set of interwoven green visual aisles and outdoor lanes that Rivanna Trail north of the site. visually connect the existing church institution and the residents, (10) To facilitate access to the development by public transit The applicant is proffering a street crossing at the northern as well as to the wooded vista beyond. In particular, by creating services or other single-vehicle-alternative services, intersection of Park Street and Cutler Avenue to give residents this series of connected spaces, the resident population has the including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. access to the existing CAT stop on the west side of Park Street. In ability to interact with the preschool children at the church for addition, the housing parking area will accommodate loading and intergenerational nurturing and community building. unloading of a JAUNT shuttle bus for shared rides to community (3) To promote a variety of housing types, or, within a In a neighborhood containing many families with young services. development containing only a single housing type, to children, the project provides affordable multi-family housing promote the inclusion of houses of various sizes; targeting a senior population that can simultaneously enrich the neighborhood without creating an impact due to traffic influx or unwanted social activity. The unit mix includes one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that can accommodate a variety of lifestyles. (4) To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more The proposed buildings and parking are sited to minimize efficient use of land and preservation of disturbance to critical slopes while being set back out of view of open space; surrounding streets. The total footprint of the building houses 50 units + community space in previously unused wooded area of the church’s parcel. (5) To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, A network of green spaces adjacent to the church, the housing unified projects; building, and the wooded land beyond create unique new social animation. The massing, placement, and general arrangement of the new building elements (and adjacent areas) provide novel visual and experiential gathering spaces. (6) To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the The grading of the site allows placement of the residential existing uses and character of adjacent property, building to recede visually to almost invisible from across both and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with Cutler Lane and Park Street, while providing a great deal of new respect to such adjacent property; affordable housing. Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (2)h P CONCEPTUAL ADA STRIPPING OH 426 390 41 LEGEND P LOCATION 0 CONCRETE SIDEWALK OH UTILITY NOTES: 40 OF STORM PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE 1. 20' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED 0 S 430 CHANNEL FOR ALL PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITIES. WHERE 350 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE SAN OHP MATCHLINE UTILITIES LIE WITHIN 10' OF PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY, 0 42 ADJACENT EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED TO PROVIDE 420 PROPOSED STORM LINE 434 10' WORK SPACE ON EITHER SIDE OF UTILITY. 42 TIVE PUBLIC 2. PER CITY CODE, PROPOSED BUILDINGS SHALL P 15' PRESCRIP 435 0 PROPOSED WATER LINE W OH EASEME NT . PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST 10-FEET SEPARATION FROM SEE NOTE 4. 43 PROPOSED AND EXISTING UTILITIES. 42 436 43 0 LEGEND 5 PROPOSED 2 42 5 3. GAS SERVICE IS NOT ANTICIPATED AT THIS TIME. 0 BUILDING GRASS/ LANDSCAPING 44 4. ALL NEW WATER AND SEWER LINES WILL BE PUBLIC 424 UP TO THE SERVICE LINES TO THE PROPOSED HARD SCAPE 394 S BUILDING. 42 OH ADA STRIPPING 444 438 4 P 44 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 445 0 5 444 42 44 35 410 OH 42 448 6 5 P 6 SA 450 ET 427 N 452 450 E N TRE OH 450 X 448 4) X 400 0 P 5 44 44 OTE X S 454 S 430 455 W 36 OH 45 K 454 36 TIE EXISTING SEWER 4 0 MHS HVAC PAR (SE P 37 (UNDER) TOP=452.11 5 FROM CHURCH INTO 455 37 4" CLAY (NE) 0 INV IN=448.99 4" CLAY (SE) 24" DUMPSTER 38 MANHOLE. SEWER TO 7 5 INV OUT= 44 8.9 DEC 38 0 55 #1200B RETAINING 26" DEC ENCLOSURE 0 BE PUBLIC FROM 4 5 1 STORY BRICK 39 HERE DOWNSTREAM WALL460 01000 458 460 W/ BSMT. 34" OAK CITY PID 4700 TMENT S DEC 36" DEC 466465 AR BURRUSS AP ION (2) CORPORAT 462 OHP 713 D.B. 485, PG. SAN OHP #0 PARK ST 60" OAK 41 46 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK #1200 W G 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66A W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 S LSA 0 460 MHS 4LS 0 438 TOP=431.99 0 LSA 43 AY (NW) 93 4" CL E) 42" OAK 46 6.11 8" PVC (S W) T 4 456 30" OHP LINED PIPE (S 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 2 446 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 5 439 450 452 OHP 46 E INLET W/ GRAT 3 443 P OHP 442 1.1 466 OF GRATE=43 (SW) OH 374 NEW 8" WATERMAIN TO OHP 455 465 7.01 15" CMP (W) G 25.18 18" HDPE REPLACE EXISTING 2" 450 36" OAK 1 WATERLINE 438 MHS 43 468 46 468 OHP TOP=429.81 43 SAN 7 6" MAPLE 406 44 440 37 W 0 44 44 8 40 P 410 6 40 OH 5 0 44 0 37 OH 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 5 42" OAK 4" MAPLE 4 3" MAPLE 5 10" MAPLE 430 6 P 46416 (2) 44 (2) 41 FOR THE 8 5 X G EASEMENT S IDTH GRADIN EALTH OF VIRGINIA OHP W/ GRATE VARIABLE W OH O MM ON W 736 =430.16 D HP CO D.B. 420, PG. 465 P SAN P X 442 S CONCEPTUAL OH S 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 452 440 X 460 OH CITY PID 4700 IE 455 390 450 41 COORDINATE TIE-IN TO PARAMES S AD LOCATION 446 P INST. NO. 0 50' R/W 40 W W W W 2018000033 OFLOTSTORM LOT 3 OH EXISTING 6" WATERMAIN #631 CUTLER LN 2 47000 CITY PID 47A1 WELL 0 000 LE OHP OHP OHP OHP CITCHANNEL Y PID 47A146 PAUL S KETT . A P LOT 1 WITH CITY UTILITIES FOR S INST. NO S 145000 CITY PID 147A JR CECILIA L MILL CROSSWALK ADDED RIGHT OUT ONLY SITE PLAN JOSEPH W MATCHLINE & & PHILIP A SCHR ODT 2018003642 #705 WILDER DR ACROSS PARK STREET OH MARETA W INST. NO. MHS TOP= 432.02 ONTO CUTLER LANE CHAMBERS 2014002186 P 02800 #703 WILDER DR CITY PID 4700 ISA B 02600 CITY PID 4700 02 400 INST. NO. MARIO E & LU CITY PID 4700 42 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 SCALE 1"=50' PAGE (3)a 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 D 83 0 50' 100' NA PRIVATE ENTRANCE ROAD C/L 5' 12' 12' 0.5' 2% CONC. SIDEWALK CG-2 CURB TYPICAL PARKING LOT SECTION C/L 0.5' 5' 0.5' 18' DEEP 12' 12' 18' DEEP PARKING SPOT TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE PARKING SPOT 2% CONC. SIDEWALK SUPERELEVATED CG-2 CURB CG-2 CURB ROAD SECTIONS PAGE (3)b 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES PAGE (3)c 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 P OH 40 41 410 40 P 0 37 OH 5 LEGEND 5 01200 CITY PID 4700 TMENT 41 6 41 LEGEND P 420 FOR THE 370 AR BURRUSS AP ION EASEMENTPOTENTIAL CORPOR AT 27 OH 5 TH GRADING RGINIA VARIABLE WID COMMONWEALTH OF VI . 736 ROUTING FOR ELECTRIC, D.B. 240, PG. GRASS/ LANDSCAPING #1223-1227 PA RK ST 425 TELECOMS, CABLE, AND FIBER D.B. 420, PG 5 MEADOW 36 HARD SCAPE P OH 426 POTENTIAL JUNCTION BOX OR 390 41 ADA STRIPPING P ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER LOCATION 0 OH 40 CONCRETE SIDEWALK 0 430 350 P DRY UTILITY NOTES: OH 20 DRY UTILITIES SHOWN ARE CONCEPTUAL. FINAL DRY UTILITY 420 4 434 LAYOUT AND DESIGN SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND APPLICABLE ELECTRIC AND TELECOM 42 TIVE PUBLIC P 15' PRESCRIP SERVICE PROVIDERS. 435 0 OH EASEME NT . SEE NOTE 4. 43 42 436 43 0 5 2 42 5 440 424 394 S 42 OH 444 438 4 P 44 445 0 5 444 34 42 44 410 35 OH 448 6 8 42 5 P 6 SA 450 T 427 E N 452 450 TRE OH 450 X 448 4) X 400 0 P 45 44 OTE X S 4 454 KS 430 W 455 EN 36 OH 45 454 36 4 0 HVAC PAR (SE P 37 (UNDER) 5 455 37 0 24" 38 5 DEC 38 0 5 26" DEC 45 #1200B 0 5 1 STORY BRICK 39 D 470001000 458 DEC 460 W/ BSMT. 460 34" OAK 36" DEC T S S APARTMEN 466465 (2) PORATION 462 OHP 48 5, PG . 713 SAN OHP PARK ST 60" OAK 41 46 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK #1200 W G 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66 W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 S LSA 0 460 4LS 0 A 438 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 T 4 456 30" OHP 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 2 446 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 40 5 439 450 452 5 46 443 HP 442 =431.13 466 455 O 465 MP (SW) G DPE (W) 45 36" OAK 0 1 438 43 468 46 468 OHP 43 SAN 7 6" MAPLE 44 440 0 420 W 44 44 8 HP 5 0 44 OH 42" OAK 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 4" MAPLE O 4 10" MAPLE 3" MAPLE 430 6 P (2) 46 44 (2) 8 S X OHP OH D O HP 465 P SAN P X 442 S OH S 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 452 440 X OH 460 CITY PID 4700ADIE 455 450 PARAMES S P CONCEPTUAL DRY UTILITLY PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE (3)d 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 83 0 50' 100' D NA Proposed Parcel Boundary PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN Overview 50 apartment units 54 parking spaces Property Current Zoning: R-1 Boundary Proposed Zoning: PUD PUD Boundary Edge of Wooded Area 25 Setback from Setbacks Interior to PUD adjacent parcels Front: 0’ Side: 0’ Conceptual Rear: 0’ Location of Proposed Trail g in Setbacks at PUD Boundary: 25' ild Area of Development Bu for Future Church and d se Maximum Height Preschool Uses po Apartments: 45’ o Pr 35’ max height within 75’ of R1 per Sec. 34-501(2) nc rch ry tua Land Use Summary Sa hu C es rch l Total Site Area: 7.43 acres (100%) +/- oo Pr hu ch Open Space Area (approx.): 3.22 acres ( 50%) +/- C g kin (15% open space requirement) r Pa Nonresidential Uses: Church not to exceed: 7,000 sf Preschool not to exceed: 8,000 sf Setback internal to PUD 0' Residential Density 6.73 dwelling units/acre (DUA) Dri vew ay Open Lawn Area of Development for Future Church and Preschool Uses LAND USE PLAN Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (4)a Proposed Use Matrix The project proposes the following changes to the permitted uses under current zoning. Areas where zoning has changed are highlighted in yellow. “A” indicates ancillary uses, “B” indicates uses which are permitted by-right, “P” indicates uses which require a provisional use permit, “S” indicates uses which require a special use permit, and “T” indicates uses which require a temporary use permit. Uses not identified are not permitted within the zoning district. Planned Unit Development District Primary Objectives Use Types Use Types PUD (proposed) Existing Zoning - R-1 (for reference) PUD (proposed) Existing Zoning - R-1 (for reference) RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED USES Assembly (outdoor) Accessory apartment, internal P Temporary (outdoor church services, etc.) T T Accessory apartment, external P Cemetery S S Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B Clubs, private S (residential) Communications facilities: Adult assisted living Attached facilities utilizing utility poles as the B B 1—8 residents B attachment structure Greater than 8 residents Attached facilities not visible from any adjacent B B Amateur radio antennas, to height of 75 ft. B street or property Homestay B Daycare facility <8,000 SF B S Convent/monastery S Educational facilities (non-residential) Dwellings: Elementary S Multifamily B High schools S Maximum of 21 DUA B Colleges and universities S Single-family attached Libraries B Single-family detached B B Municipal/governmental offices, buildings, S courts Townhouse Parking: Two-family Surface parking lot (19 or less spaces) A Family day home Surface parking lot (more than 20 spaces) A 1—5 children B Temporary parking facilities A 6—12 children S Indoor: health/sports clubs; tennis club; B Home occupation P P swimming club; yoga studios; dance studios, Occupancy, residential skating rinks, recreation centers, etc. (on City- 3 unrelated persons B B owned, City School Board-owned, or other public 4 unrelated persons B B property) Residential Density (developments) Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and B ball courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, 1—8 residents B etc. (city-owned), and related concession stands 8+ residents Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and B S Temporary family health care structure T ball courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, NON-RESIDENTIAL: GENERAL AND MISC. etc. (private) COMMERCIAL Utility facilities S S Auditoriums, theaters Utility lines B B Houses of worship <7,000 SF B B Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 (4)b 410 40 P 37 OH 5 PLANTING SCHEDULE 5 470001200 41 CITYSIPID 6 41 ENT AREA 420 BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME R THE E ROOT TMCANOPY TOTAL P 370 TY MINIMUM INSTALLED AR BURRUSS AP ION EASEMENT FOINIA 4 QUERCUS PHELLOS WILLOW OAK 2" CAL. CORPORBB─ 24 0, AT PG . 27 370 1,480 OH 5 TH GRADING RG VARIABLE WID COMMONWEALTH OF VI . 736 D.B . #1223-1227 PA RK ST 425 D.B. 420, PG 5 MEADOW 36 10 LIRIODNEDRON TULIPIFERA TULIP POPLAR 2'' CAL. BB─ 387 3,870 P CANOPY GRAND TOTAL 5,350 OH 426 39 0 41 P 0 OH 40 0 430 350 P OH 0 42 420 434 42 TIVE PUBLIC P 15' PRESCRIP 435 0 OH EASEME NT . SEE NOTE 4. 43 42 436 43 0 5 2 42 5 440 4 24 394 S 42 OH 444 438 4 P 44 445 0 5 444 34 42 44 35 410 OH 448 6 8 42 5 P 6 SA 450 ET 427 N 452 450 E N TRE OH 450 X 448 4) X 400 0 P 5 44 44 OTE X S 454 S 430 W 455 36 OH 45 K 454 36 4 0 PAR (SE P 37 5 455 37 0 24" 38 5 DEC 38 0 5 26" DEC 45 #1200B 0 5 1 STORY BRICK 39 470001000 458 DEC 460 W/ BSMT. 460 36" DEC 34" OAK APARTMENT S 466465 (2) RATION 462 OHP , PG. 713 SAN OHP 60" OAK 41 46 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK #1200 W 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66A W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 S LSA 0 460 4LS 0 438 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 T 4 456 30" OHP 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 2 446 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 40 5 439 450 452 5 46 443 442 466 455 465 45 36" OAK 0 31 438 468 46 468 4 43 SAN 7 6" MAPLE 44 440 0 420 W 44 44 8 5 0 44 OH 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 42" OAK 4" MAPLE NOTES: 4 10" MAPLE 3" MAPLE 430 6 P (2) 46 44 (2) 8 1. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SHALL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY TO THIS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN, S OHP OH D O SUBJECT TO CHANGES AND REVISIONS COINCIDENT WITH THE LAND USE PLANNING, CIVIL ENGINEERING, ARCHITECTURE, HP AND, REGULATORY APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN SOME PLAN MODIFICATION. 465 P SAN 442 S S 2. SIDEWALKS 5' MINIMUM WIDTH AS SHOWN. 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 452 440 460 CITY PID 4700ADIE 455 450 PARAMES S 446 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE (5)a 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 83 0 50' 100' D NA PROFFERS PAGE ---- 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 Revised - November 15, 2021 Attachment D PARK ST. PUD SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1200 PARK STREET SITE DATA: TAX MAP PARCEL: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 470002120 TOTAL PARCEL AREA: Sheet List Table 7.50 ACRES ZONING: R1 Sheet Number Sheet Title OWNER: PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1 COVER DEVELOPER: 2 CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE DESIGN: 3 FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN TIMMONS GROUP PROJECT LOCATION 4 PARKING PLAN SOURCE OF BOUNDARY SURVEY: PLAT OF RECORD 5 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY: EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY TIMMONS GROUP MAY, 2021 6 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ZONE X AS SHOWN ON FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 7 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE MAP NUMBER 51003C0286D, DATED 2-4-2005 8 TREE SURVEY CURRENT USE: RELIGIOUS CHURCH 9 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS PROPOSED USE: PUD TOTAL # OF SHEETS: 9 VICINITY MAP LIGHTING: LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3000 LUMENS. NOTE: SEE ARCHITECTURAL SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY: SCALE: 1" = 500' INFORMATION ATTACHED ITE USE CODE 220; LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY 52 UNITS AM PEAK HOUR - 26 (6 ENTER, 20 EXIT) PM PEAK HOUR - 33 (21 ENTER, 12 EXIT) AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS - 352 ADT APPLICANT: PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE 682 BERMAR CIR. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 CONTACT: ANDREW MILLER TELEPHONE: 434-422-5497 ENGINEER OF RECORD: TIMMONS GROUP 608 PRESTON AVENUE, STE. 200 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902 CONTACT:JONATHAN SHOWALTER, P.E. TELEPHONE: 434-327-1681 COVER PAGE 1 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 Revised - November 15, 2021 406 37 410 P OH 40 410MATCHLINE 6 LIMITS OF 40 HP (34-1120(b)(2)) 0 37 5 DISTURBANCE O 5 DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% 01200 CITY PID 4700 TMENT 41 OR GREATER AND: 6 41 HP 420 FOR THE 370 AR BURRUSS AP ION G EASEMENT CORPORAT DISTURBED CRITICAL 27 O 5 IDTH GRADIN VARIABLE W COMMONWEALTH OF VI . 736 RGINIA 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 D.B. 240, PG. #1223-1227 PA RK ST 425 D.B. 420, PG 5 MEADOW SLOPES B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY 36 P AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY CREEK OH 426 THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 390 41 EXISTING CRITICAL P 2.79 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 0 OH 40 0.00 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE OFF SITE SLOPES PER ORD. 0.05 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0 430 0.00 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (34-1120(b)(2)) 350 NOTE: P OH THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE 0 42 PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE 420 SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 27 FOR 434 DETAILS. 42 TIVE PUBLIC P 15' PRESCRIP 435 0 OH EASEMENT. SEE NOTE 4. 43 42 436 43 0 2 5 5 42 440 424 394 S 42 OH 444 438 4 P 44 445 0 5 444 34 42 44 410 35 OH 448 6 8 42 5 P 6 SA 450 ET 427 N 452 450 TRE OH 450 X 448 E 4) X 400 0 P 5 44 44 X NOT S 454 KS 430 W 455 36 OH 45 454 E 36 4 0 MHS HVAC (SE PAR P 37 (UNDER) TOP=452.11 5 455 37 4" CLAY (NE) 0 INV IN=448.99 4" CLAY (SE) 24" 38 7 5 INV OUT=448.9 DEC 38 0 5 26" DEC 45 #1200B 0 5 1 STORY BRICK 39 S 458 DEC 460 W/ BSMT. 460 34" OAK 36" DEC 466465 (2) 462 OHP SAN OHP 60" OAK 41 46 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK #1200 W G 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66 W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 S LSA 0 460 4LS 0 A 438 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 T 4 OHP 456 30" OHP 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 6 2 446 2" MAPLE 38 60" OAK 36" POPLAR 40 390 5 439 380 450 452 5 46 443 P 442 466 OH 455 465 388 G 378 4 450 36" OAK 38 OHP 31 OHP 438 468 46 OHP 468 4 OHP 43 415 SAN 374 7 6" MAPLE 44 440 420 W 0 44 44 8 HP 5 0 44 42" OAK 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 4" MAPLE O 4 10" MAPLE 3" MAPLE (2) 6 46 44 (2) 406 8 37 X 40 41MATCHLINE OHP 6 40 0 OH O 0 37 HP 5 465 P 5 SAN P X 442 S OH S 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 41 THE 452 440 X SEMENT FOR OH CITY PID 4700 370 5 VARIABLE WIDT H GRADING EA CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT P SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 2 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 50' 100' Revised - November 15, 2021 D NA P FOR THE N OH G EASEMENT CORPORATIO IDTH GRADIN EALTH OF VIRGINIA D.B. 240, PG. 27 VARIABLE W COMM ON W 736 #1223-1227 PA RK ST D.B. 420, PG. P OH P OH P OH TIVE PUBLIC 02120 P 15' PRESCRIP CITY PID 4700 HURCH (DISCIPLES OF OH EASEMENT. TC H R IS TI AN C SEE NOTE 4. PARK STREE CHRIST) COUNTY) 1 (C H A N G E OF NAME, 43 TY) D.B. 348, PG. PG. 520 (VESTING, COUN D.B . 33 5, D) (SURVEYE 7.433 ACRES : R-1 ZONING S OH P OH P SA ET N TRE OH X 4) X P E X NOT S KS W OH E HVAC PAR (SE P (UNDER) 24" DEC #1200B 26" DEC 1 STORY BRICK W/ BSMT. 34" OAK 0 PID 47000100 T S DEC 36" DEC EN USS APARTM (2) ORPORATIO N OHP . 485, PG. 713 SAN OHP 0 PARK ST 60" OAK GRASS GRASS 36" OAK #1200 W G LSA 1 STORY BRICK LSA S 6" MAPLE LSA W/ BSMT. LSA LSA 42" OAK T 30" OHP MAPLE OHP 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR / GRATE E=431.13 P CMP (SW) OH HDPE (W) 36" OAK G OHP SAN 6" MAPLE W P OH OH 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 42" OAK 3" MAPLE 10" MAPLE P (2) (2) S X OHP OH D O HP P SAN S P X OH S CUTLER LANE X 02000 OH CITY PID 4700ADIE PARAMES S P T. NO . 50' R/W INS W W W W 2018000033 #631 CUTLER LN LOT 2 LOT 3 47000 CITY PID 47A1 WELL 46000 LE OHP OHP OHP OHP LOT 1 CITY PID 47A1 LLS PAULA S KETT . INST. NO S 145000 IA L MI CITY PID 147A JR CE CIL & 2018003642 JOSEPH W FIRETRUCK AUTOTURN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 3 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 50' 100' Revised - November 15, 2021 D NA P OH 40 41 410 40 P 0 37 PARKING CALCULATION: OH 5 5 01200 CITY PID 4700 TMENT 41 6 41 P 420 R THE 370 AR BURRUSS AP ION EASEMENT FOINIA PARKING REQUIRED CORPOR AT . 27 OH 5 TH GRADING RG VARIABLE WID COMMONWEALTH OF VI . 736 1 PER 1- OR 2-BEDROOM APARTMENTS X 46 APARTMENTS: 46D.B. 240, PG #1223-1227 PA RK ST 425 D.B. 420, PG 5 MEADOW 2 PER 3 BEDROOM APARTMETNS X 4 APARTMENTS: 8 36 P OH TOTAL REQUIRED: 54 426 390 41 P 0 OH 40 PARKING PROVIDED 0 APARTMENT PARKING: TOTAL PROVIDED: 54 54 430 350 P OH 0 42 420 434 42 TIVE PUBLIC 02120 P 15' PRESCRIP CITY PID 4700 HURCH (DISCIPLES OF 435 0 OH EASEME NT . T CH R IS TIA N C SEE NOTE 4. PARK STREE 43 CHRIST) OUNTY) E OF NAME, C )43 42 436 0 5 H A N G 2 43 1 (C TY 5 42 D.B. 348, PG. PG. 520 (VESTING, COUN 440 D.B. 335, U R V E Y E D ) 424 (S 7.433 ACRES : R-1 ZONING 394 42 OH 444 438 4 P 44 445 0 5 444 34 42 44 410 35 OH 448 6 8 42 5 P 6 5 5 5 2 450 T 427 12 E 452 450 TRE OH 450 X 448 4) X 400 0 P 5 44 44 OTE X 454 KS 430 6 455 6 6 2 EN 36 OH 5 454 45 36 4 0 HVAC PAR (SE P 37 (UNDER) 5 455 37 0 24" 38 5 DEC 38 0 5 26" DEC 45 #1200B 0 5 1 STORY BRICK 39 D 470001000 458 DEC 460 W/ BSMT. 460 34" OAK 36" DEC T S S APARTMEN 466465 (2) PORATION 462 OHP 48 5, PG . 713 OHP PARK ST 60" OAK 41 46 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK #1200 G 1 STORY BRICK 44 LSA LSA 46 5 66 W/ BSMT. 435 6" MAPLE 46 LSA 0 460 4LS 0 A 438 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 T 4 456 30" OHP 466 46 MAPLE OHP 467 441 2 446 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 40 5 439 450 452 5 46 443 HP 442 =431.13 466 455 O 465 MP (SW) G DPE (W) 45 36" OAK 0 1 438 43 468 46 468 OHP 43 7 6" MAPLE 44 440 0 420 44 44 8 HP 5 0 44 OH 42" OAK 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE 4" MAPLE O 4 10" MAPLE 3" MAPLE 430 6 P (2) 46 44 (2) 8 S X OHP OH D O HP 465 P P X 442 OH S 435 CUTLER LANE 02000 452 440 X OH 460 CITY PID 4700ADIE 455 450 PARAMES S P PARKING PLAN SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 4 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 50' 100' Revised - November 15, 2021 D NA E RD CHARLOTTESVILLE O RI HIGH SCHOOL RIVANNA TRAIL FUTURE LOCATION OF MEADOWCREEK PUBLIC GOLF COURSE BOTANICAL TRANSIT GARDENS M EA BUS STOP D O W Y C PKW R EE K ER 5 MIN. 10 MIN. 15 MIN. TR ARN .25 MI. .50 MI. .75 MI. A IL PROJECT NW JOH EXISTING LOCATION MACAA THE COVENANT PRE-SCHOOL PUBLIC TRANSIT SCHOOL DARDEN TOWE RD 25 BUS STOP MEMORIAL PARK E 0 IR BY LEGEND NT PA FUTURE PLANNED EXISTING CI MULTI-USE SS CLIMBING BIKE LANE M EXISTING BIKE LANE ALONG PARK STREET ST FUTURE CLIMBING SOUTH BOUND BIKE LANE RK PUBLIC PA TRANSIT BUS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN SCALE 1"=500' PAGE 5 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 0 500' 1000' Revised - November 15, 2021 NAD 83 "E 11 406 9.7 410 37 410 0 40 P ' 40 OH 6 ' 37 0 .01 5 41 5 OH P 88 420 6 41 370 5 7"E P 425 S 65° 5 '5 OH 36 36 426 ° N6 390 41 FUTURE 06'56 0 40 P CLIMBING BIKE OH 430 0 LANE ON PARK 350 "E 0 42 420 STREET 434 42 1 3 2 .0 P OH 435 0 43 42 5 436 43 2 42 0 0' 5 440 424 C2 OH 42 394 P 438 444 4 445 44 5 0 444 42 448 44 34 410 42 6 35 6 8 5 OH 450 427 P 452 448 450 450 OH X 0 5 X 400 44 44 P X 454 430 455 45 36 454 350 S8 ET 4 36 6.0' 6.0' 0 37 8.1' 455 0 5 16.0' 37 °51 TRE 0 5 38 EXISTING SIDEWALK 50.0' OHP 45 ZONE 24' 38 90 5 AE '56 37.9' 0 NORTH ALONG PARK 38.0' 5 460 3 ZONE 460 121. X "E 458 KS STREET CONNECTING S 15.5' 17.2' 17.2' 464 6 65 462 4.0' TO SIDEWALK ALONG 4.0' 6.0' 6.0' PAR 31 6.0' 445 41 10.1' MELBOURNE 46 6.0' 12.2' 8.1' 0 8.2' 0"W 8.4' 8.3' 9.3 0 0 EXISTING 36 467 OHP 12.4'12.0'12.3' 92.0' 7' PRESCHOOL 0.3' 36 °50'5 0.7' 0.5' 2 38.0' ON SITE 65 44 435 66 46 OHP 0.6' 460 4 0.7' 0.3' 4 438 0 0 0 92.0' 43 N34 46 456 T 4 G 466 441 46 446 467 439 2 5 450 452 40 443 46 5 442 466 455 465 HP OHP 450 O C1 1 404 438 43 468 468 46 440 44 43 415 44 7 42 8 0 44 458.00' 0 OH 5 "W 44 '0 7 430 0 S39°43'29"W 401.22' S33 ° 0 5 P 4 6 P 46 44 OH OH S OHP 8 D O X HP P 465 442 X 435 OH S CUTLER LANE 440 452 460 455 450 X P 446 P EXISTING OHP OHP OHP OHP OH S MONTESSORI SCHOOL CONNECTION S39°56'51"W OH EXISTING SIDEWALK P TO EXISTING 10.14' CONNECTION TO EXISTING SIDEWALKS ALONG BOTH SIDES SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF PARK STREET AND OF CUTLER LANE SOUTH SIDE OF CUTLER LANE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN SCALE 1"=500' PAGE 6 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 0 500' 1000' Revised - November 15, 2021 NAD 83 P OHP OH 6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND E&SC NARRATIVE: 390 38 380 395 396 400 372 388 378 4 STORMWATER QUALITY: OHP 370 38 P 368 OH OHP 374 OHP 405 PARCEL 470002120 IS 7.433 ACRES AND PRE-SCHOOL FACILITY FOR THE PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS 406 410 37 P 410 40 CONSISTS OF TWO BUILDINGS, A PARKING LOT, AND PLAY AREA. 0.59 OH 40 6 37 P 0 ACRES OF THE SITE IS IMPERVIOUS, 1.52 ACRES OF MANAGED TURF, 41 5 OH 41 5 420 6 370 AND 5.33 ACRES OF WOODED AREA. 5 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN 425 5 36 P 426 390 THE TOTAL PROPOSED LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE IS 1.55 ACRES AND OH 41 40 0 WILL REQUIRE 1.69 LBS OF PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL. WATER QUALITY P 430 STORMWATER 0 REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF OH 350 SITE OUTFALL AND RIPRAP NUTRIENT CREDITS FROM AN APPROVED CREDIT BANK IN 0 42 420 ACCORDANCE WITH LIS CODE OF VIRGINIA 62.1-44.15:35. 434 CHANNEL TO EXISTING 42 CHANNEL 435 0 43 STORMWATER QUANTITY: 436 43 25 42 5 0 2 4 440 424 THE EXISTING LAYOUT HAS THE PRE-SCHOOL LOCATED AT THE CROWN 394 42 OF THE SITE IN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. RUNOFF LEAVES THE SITE 438 444 445 4 44 VIA SHEET FLOW TOWARDS PARK STREET WHERE A PORTION OF IT 5 444 0 44 34 42 410 35 O4H ENTERS THE CITY STORM NETWORK. THE MAJORITY OF THE RUNOFF 448 6 8 26 5 P ENTERS MEADOW CREEK. THE NORTHERN END OF THE SITE LIES 450 427 452 WITHIN FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN, ZONE AE. 448 450 450 X 400 5 OH 0 44 44 X 454 430 P IN THE POST DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS 455 350 36 45 454 36 AREAS IS COLLECTED VIA INLETS INTO AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION 4 37 5 0 455 37 0 5 PIPE. CHANNEL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET THROUGH 38 5 0 5 38 90 ZONE A 45 E THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION WITH THE 1-YEAR, 24 HOUR STORM 3 ZONE X BEING DETAINED PER 9VAC25-870(B)3. TO MEET FLOOD PROTECTION 458 460 460 464665 462 S REQUIREMENTS THE STORMWATER CHANNELS SHALL BE ANALYZED 41 445 46 AND SHOWN TO BE ADEQUATE TO THE POINT WHERE THE SYSTEM 0 0 363 0 OHP 467 ENTERS A MAPPED FLOODPLAIN PER 9VAC25-871-66(C)3. 62 360 5 44 6 46 364 5 46 46 460 OHP 0 439 4433 8 370 0 0 46 46 43 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NARRATIVE: 4 456 466 T G 467 442 1 446 E&SC MEASURES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND 40 44 2 5 450 452 5 443 46 SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK (VESCH) TO ENSURE SEDIMENT LADEN 466 455 465 RUNOFF IS CONTAINED ONSITE AND TO ENSURE PROTECTION OF 395 450 P 404 SA 1 OH 438 468 43 468 N ADJACENT STREAM. FINAL DESIGN WILL BE PROVIDED WITH 43 46 420 415 440 44 0 7 44 44 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS. 8 44 5 0 430 6 OH 4 46 44 8 O P S HP 465 442 P 435 X OH 460 440 S 452 455 450 446 OH P PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN SCALE 1"=80' PAGE 7 0 80' 160' 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 NA D 83 Revised - November 15, 2021 75.00' 341.29' 178.39' 41°10'03" N27°11'59"E 334.00' OHP 395 396 400 DYL 6 0 38 39 EP 380 8 OHP C3 38 4 38 N7 372 378 405 OHP OHP 0° OHP OHP 23 0 '04 37 410 4 8 EP 37 36 CITY PID 470001200 ' " E EP 1 BURRUSS APARTMENT OHP 8.0 CORPORATION D.B. 240, PG. 27 P 40 #1223-1227 PARK ST OH 8 41 6 11 40 0 9.7 EP 40 376 "E 41 0 '57 0' 5 420 6 41 37 6 P 6°3 OH 425 IRON ROD (S) 5 5 P N VARIABLE WIDTH GRADING EASEMENT FOR THE 426 370 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OH D.B. 420, PG. 736 5 36 S65°06 430 41 0 420 390 42 CL DITCH 0 CREEKW 40 MEADO 0 434 L DY P '56"E OH 15' PRESCRIPTIVE PUBLIC EASEMENT. 42 435 SEE NOTE 4. 2 350 5 42 CITY PID 470002120 436 PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH (DISCIPLES OF 2 42 C CHRIST) OH 0 D.B. 348, PG. 431 (CHANGE OF NAME, COUNTY) 132.00 42 440 43 L 43 Y P D D.B. 335, PG. 520 (VESTING, COUNTY) 4 0 7.433 ACRES (SURVEYED) 5 438 CHAIN LINK ZONING: R-1 FENCE 4' HT. 5 424 444 42 42 ' 444 6 TRAIL (TYP) IRON ROD (F) X 445 44 OH 394 448 36" POPLAR X 0 P SWING-SET 44 OH 6 0 E 4 ET 44 PLAY P 6" (2) 448 4" SET E 450 410 5 450 DOGWOOD 30" POPLAR E N TR ) DOGWOOD 44 X 450 OT S 452 RK 34 35 (SE PA 8 427 ROCK (SEE SHT. 1) 5 ARMOR MHS DETAIL TOP=452.11 454 SAND BOX INV IN=448.99 4" CLAY (NE) INV OUT=448.97 4" CLAY (SE) 454 455 31" OAK CHAIN LINK FENCE 4' HT. OH .24' 400 CONC. STEPS 45 430 12 TREADS 13 RISERS W / ALCOVE BENEATH LTW 6.0' X 6.0' 4 P HVAC CONC. SWLK (UNDER) 5 8.1' CITY PID 470001000 16.0' 45 BURRUSS APARTMENT 24" DEC 121 4' 45 CORPORATION GRAVEL 50 HVAC .00B' D.B. 485, PG. 713 #0 PARK ST #120 5 360 38.0' 1 STORY BRICK 460 37.9' S 40" 365 S8 458 CL STREAM LTW OAK W/ BSMT. 350 370 460 375 445 0°5 W 17.2'15.5' 17.2 380 OH 385 0 TIMBER STEPS 4.0' ' 4646 '50" 4.0' 6 5 462 WOODEN FENCE 4' HT. BRICK LANDSCAPE 1'5 P AREA CONC. 39 ZON E AE BENCH CONC. 6.0' EP 6.0' 6" 6.0' °50 WOODEN TRASH ENCLOSURE LTW 6"E W / 2 WOODEN STEPS 6.0' 30 POPLAR 10.1' FRAME SHED MHS 435 ZON OH 8. 46 8.1' 12 .2' 2' 4' WOOD SWLK 8.4' TOP=431.99 EX HVAC (SEE SHT. 1) CONC. STEPS 3' 467 6 TREADS 4' 7 RISERS FRAME 4 SHED ' .3' =425.93 4" CLAY (NW) 438 8. CONC. 0 N34 SWLK N=426.11 8" PVC (SE) P DETAIL 92 .0 #1200 ' 41 ' .012 .89 8" LINED PIPE (SW) 0.3' 0.7' HVAC 0.5' W 65 0 460 (SEE SHT. 1) LTW LTW ILD 319 6 1 STORY BRICK W CONC. STEPS DETAIL 6 TREADS 46 7 RISERS (DOWN) W / CANOPY 4 OO 0.6' 12.412 441 38.0' W/ BSMT. 0.7' 0.3' D 456 360 446 OF 439 URB INLET W/ GRATE FLOOR DRAIN TOP=459.07 CO AR TRE 989 .37 CH ( B. 1 46 OP OF GRATE=431.13 FF=467.22 92.0' 44 UN LO AS , PG 443 T 450 =427.01 15" CMP (SW) TY TTE UR . 5 442 D. 452 0 G T=425.18 18" HDPE (W) 360 36 OH 0 TM SV ER) 94 ' P ILL 2 2 CONC. STEPS 3 RISERS 6 5 CONC. 467 466 C1 MHS SA 455 P 46 "PARK STREET 431 46 CONC. TOP=429.81 CHRISTIAN CHURCH" 438 N 4 46 BRICK SIGN 364 466 EP 440 2 8 SP ACES 370 DETAIL 44 44 IRON ROD (S) (SEE SHT. 1) P 430 8 465 PARKING BLOCK (TYP) 9 SP 13 SPACES OH 40 ACES 5 @ 391.78' 11 REG. 2 ADA S S39°43'29"W 468 5 EP OH HP 450 401.22' 468 4" MAPLE OHP D 46 OH PO 7 OH CONC. SWLK PK P ALK S EP 395 5' N 5 404 SW AI 442 P 43 L 44 OH OS 440 415 (S 11 SPACES 458.004' 20 43 6 44 CR ) 46 E CUTLER LANE 0 U S33°05'07"W IRON ROD (S) 452 N 450 0 ROCK 4 E 50' R/W 446 465 455 44 V A S ARMOR 460 OHP X 8 EP EP DWS DYL X IRON ROD (F) @ IRON ROD (F) IRON ROD (F) @ 15" CPP TBC OHP X IRON PIPE (F) 127.6', 0.4' SOUTH INV = 403.8 OH MHS OHP 255.1', 0.1' SOUTH @ 191.32' @ 318.74' IRON R TOP=432.02 IRON R 3' WOODEN FENCE CITY PID 470002000 OHP P P PARAMES S ADIE OH INST. NO. CITY PID 470002800 2018000033 CITY PID 470002101 MARIO E & LUISA B #631 CUTLER LN KATHERINE A MORRIS CAPACILLO OD (F) INST. NO. OD (F) CITY PID 470002600 TREE SURVEY SCALE 1"=60' PAGE 8 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 60' 120' Revised - November 15, 2021 D NA 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 SSF 3.05-1 SILT FENCE (WITH WIRE SUPPORT) No Scale EROSION CONTROL DETAILS PAGE 9 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 Revised - November 15, 2021 PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH PROPERTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING Architectural Supplement September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 Materials Included: a. Project Team b. View from top of Cutler Lane c. View from Cutler Lane d. View from Cutler Lane and Park St. Intersection e. View from Park St. f. Overall project sketch g. Project perspective Project Partners In 1996, TJHIC joined together with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, which had been founded in 1968 by Francis Fife, Delegate Mitch Van About Piedmont Housing Alliance Yahres, Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and Robert Stroud. CHF brought substantial assets to the alliance, including land. At that time the organization took the Piedmont Housing Alliance is dedicated to improving financial outcomes name Piedmont Housing Alliance. for individuals and families by offering innovative affordable housing solutions. In doing this, PHA acknowledges the role real estate practices About PSCC and laws have played in preventing Black Americans and others from building wealth in its service area and throughout the U.S.. Piedmont This small church on a hill was anchored on its 7.43 acres in the summer Housing Alliance stands ready to make intentional change to right these of 1960. It began with the hopes and dreams of fewer than 25 members wrongs. and made sure its legacy was not forgotten when, in 1961, designers developed its grand master plan with multiple buildings and a larger Piedmont Housing Alliance’s work focuses on achieving housing justice church campus. At its founding, a vision for an intergenerational center through the following program areas: for community inspired the early church leaders to imagine buildings and Community Management: PHA currently manages 11 properties located in outdoor spaces where the church community could gather with neighbors. the city of Charlottesville and Albemarle and Nelson counties. The current sanctuary building was intended to be a fellowship or multi- purpose room, but as often happens its use was adapted to fit the needs Lending Program: PHA’s lending program is certified by the US Treasury as of the Church for many years and to this day serves as the central space a Community Development Financial Institution (“CDFI”). for all Church gatherings. Development: PHA’s development and redevelopment activity aims to Successive Church members and leaders did not lose sight of the PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH (RIGHT) AND PRESCHOOL (LEFT) preserve and increase the number of high-quality, affordable housing units importance of intergenerational ministries that would serve not only the in its area. Piedmont Housing Alliance is certified as a Community Housing people who call the church home, but to provide a welcome table to the Development Organization (CHDO). Locust Grove community in which it sits. Housing Counseling: PHA’s HUD-approved housing counseling program The Church’s first foray in offering services and support to the broader opportunities to spend time with grandpas, grandmas, aunts and uncles provides one-on-one coaching for home buying, credit improvement, debt community began in 1998 when a committed group had a vision to serve are on decline. reduction, savings programs, fair housing, and foreclosure prevention. the community by offering an affordable full-day Christian preschool. Piedmont Housing Alliance offers free classes in the community and is a This preschool has become the Church’s largest ministry, impacting At an October 2020 church planning and leadership gathering, ideas for Virginia Housing Development Authority-approved provider of First Time generations of children throughout Charlottesville. The enrollment the feasibility and study of a building effort to address both these ideas Homebuyer Education, required for access to financial assistance in averages 25-28 students, with a 1 to 10 student/teacher ratio. The and community needs were identified and discussed. After much thought, homebuying. (A first-time homebuyer is defined as a buyer who has not ministry is thriving, but the old building that houses it is not. PSCC decided in May 2021 to partner with Piedmont Housing Alliance to owned a home for a period of three years prior to purchase.) consider options for the portion of Church land running alongside Park Recently, the Church revisited its long-held vision of an intergenerational St. to help address the need for senior housing and provide a funding Piedmont Housing Alliance is the successor organization to the Thomas campus after a variety of inquiries and studies. Two factors caused the resource for the enhancement of the Preschool Ministry. Jefferson Housing Improvement Commission (TJHIC), which was founded Church to take action to realize this vision. First, the well-documented in 1983 by Jane Saunier as part of the Thomas Jefferson Planning lack of affordable housing in Charlottesville, especially for seniors District Commission. TJHIC received designation as a Community Housing living on fixed incomes, has been noted by IMPACT and Charlottesville’s Development Organization (CHDO) by the state of Virginia and allied with recently completed Housing Strategy. Second, the Church recognizes the following four organizations: Charlottesville Housing Improvement that preschoolers need more than clean and well-appointed spaces. It is Project (CHIP-now disbanded); Albemarle Housing Improvement Project proven children benefit beautifully when intermingled with caring senior (AHIP-now a separate non-profit); Jordan Development Corporation; and adults. And seniors benefit from intermingling with children, especially Midway Development Corporation. in times of growing social isolation in that population. As many families live far away from extended family, isolated in small nuclear situations, Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 A VIEW OF PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING FROM TOP OF CUTLER LANE Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 B VIEW OF PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING FROM CUTLER LANE Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 C VIEW OF PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING FROM CUTLER LN + PARK ST INTERSECTION Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 D TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY Bike Lanes Paved Trails Bicycle Vision Arterial Trail Corridor (2015 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan) Rivanna Trails Foundation Footpaths Recommended Bike & Pedestrian Projects (2015 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan) Proposed Climbing Lane on Park Street Rivanna Trail (2015 Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan) SITE bike/pedestrian wilderness trail easement potential future connection to church property new sidewalk new crosswalk SITE TRAIL CONNECTIONS Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 E Greenbrier Park Pen Park Meadowcreek Gardens & Valley Piedmont Botanical Garden Darden Towe SITE Mcintyre Park Northeast Park Washington Park Schenk’s Greenway Rivanna Trail Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 F VIEW OF PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 G OVERALL PROJECT SKETCH Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 H PROJECT PERSPECTIVE Affordable Senior Housing Park Street Christian Church property September 3, 2021 Revised November 15, 2021 I Attachment E IIM-TE-384 – Attachment D Sample Data Collection Sheet for Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations LOCATION DESCRIPTION – PART 1 Name of Data Collector: Thomas Ruff, PE, PTOE (TIMMONS GROUP) _____________________________________________________________ Date of Data Collection: 06/24/2021 _____________________________________________________________ Locality/District of Study Location: City of Charlottesville _____________________________________________________ 1) Crossing Location: □ Unsignalized Intersection □ Mid-block If crossing is (or will be) at unsignalized intersection location, define intersecting streets: Major Street Name: Park Street 25 Posted Speed Limit: ___________ MPH Functionality: □ Arterial □ Collector □ Local Minor Street Name: Cutler Lane 25 Posted Speed Limit: ___________ MPH Functionality: □ Arterial □ Collector □ Local If crossing is (or will be) at mid-block location, define location on major street: Major Street Name: Posted Speed Limit: ___________ MPH Functionality: □ Arterial □ Collector □ Local Location Description (e.g. 500 ft East of Main St.): 2) Is this a shared-use path (e.g. bicycles) crossing? □ Yes □ No 3) Existing Nearby Pedestrian Generators and Attractors (e.g. moderate density residential developments, schools, parks, commercial establishments, transit stops): New multi-family unit residential development North/East of crossing: _______________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ South/West of crossing: ______________________________________________________________ Access to CAT transit stop and the overall Park Street sidewalk network __________________________________________________________________________________ 4) Existing Traffic Control: □ Stop/Yield Sign □ Uncontrolled 5) Is there Another Marked Crosswalk across the same roadway within 300 feet of the Crossing Location? □ Yes □ No 6) Existing Crossing Treatments (if any) (e.g. standard crosswalk, curb ramps, and etc.): None ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ 7) (for stop/yield controlled locations only) Is the Crossing Location Across a Yield-controlled Approach at an Off-ramp Junction or Channelized Right Turn Lane? □ Yes □ No 917 I&I Memorandum 384 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT D Page D1 of D3 July 12, 2016 IIM-TE-384 – Attachment D Sample Data Collection Sheet for Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations LOCATION DESCRIPTION – PART 2 8) Roadway Configuration: □ 2-Lanes (one-way street) □ 2-Lanes (two-way street with no median) □ 2-Lanes with raised median □ 3-Lanes with refuge island □ 3-Lanes (center turn lane) □ 4-Lanes (two-way street with no median) □ 4-Lanes with raised median □ 5-Lanes with refuge island □ 5-Lanes (center turn lane) □ 6-Lanes (two-way street with or without median) □ Other: ____________________________ 9) Crossing Distance by Direction: 38 ft Total: _______ (if applicable) From one end to the median: _______ ft, Direction: _______ (if applicable) From other end to the median: _______ ft, Direction: _______ 240' 10) Nearest Marked or Protected Pedestrian Crossing: __________________ Distance to: _______ ft 11) Could the Crossing Contain a Crosswalk of at Least 6 ft in Width? □ Yes □ No 12) (for uncontrolled locations only) Stopping Sight Distance (SSD): South 158' ft, Direction: _______ _______ 173' ft, Direction: _______ _______ North Can SSD be improved? □ Yes □ No □ Other: ____________________________ 13) Potential Safety Hazard within Crossing Location (if any): ___________________________________________________________________________________ 14) Sketch/Photo of the Crossing Location: I&I Memorandum 384 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT D Page D2 of D3 July 12, 2016 IIM-TE-384 – Attachment D Sample Data Collection Sheet for Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations 918 STEP 3 – TRAFFIC DATA What are the peak period(s) for pedestrian activity? □ AM □ PM □ Midday □ Other: ____________________________ 9,900 Major Street Vehicular Volume (ADT): ______________ vehicles/day (if applicable) Minor Street Vehicular Volume (ADT): ______________ vehicles/day (Complete where appropriate) Pedestrian Crossing Volumes / Bicycle Crossing Volumes: AM Mid-day PM Other Time: 7:00 to 8:00 to 5:00 to 6:00 to Date / Day of Week: 6/24/2021 / Thursday / 6/24/2021/ Thursday / Major Street Vehicular Volume (Hourly): 880 1228 # of Bicyclists (if known) 0 0 # of Pedestrians (if known) 4 6 Is a significant proportion of the pedestrians at this location expected to be young (middle school students or below), elderly, or disabled? □ Yes □ No Describe: _____________________________________________________________ Multi-family residential development will be targeted towards lower income and elderly populations. In addition, there is an existing Pre-School on Cutler Lane. 919 I&I Memorandum 384 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT D Page D3 of D3 July 12, 2016 IIM-TE-384 – Attachment C Reference Flow Charts for Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations 894 Figure C3. Uncontrolled Approach Flow Chart 895 896 I&I Memorandum 384.0 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT C Page C3 of C4 July 18, 2016 IIM-TE-384 – Attachment A Unsignalized Marked Crosswalk Standards 452 Table 2. Recommendations for Considering Marked Crosswalks and Other Needed 453 Pedestrian Improvements Across Uncontrolled Approaches Roadway ADT and Speed Limit Roadway 1,500 to 9,000 VPD 9,000 to 12,000 VPD 12,000 to 15,000 VPD More than 15,000 VPD Configuration ≤ 30 35 40 ≥ 45 ≤ 30 35 40 ≥ 45 ≤ 30 35 40 ≥ 45 ≤ 30 35 40 ≥ 45 MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH 2 Lanes (undivided two-way street or two-lane A A B B A A B B A A B B B B B C one-way street) 3 Lanes with refuge island OR 2 Lanes A A B B A B B B A A B B B B B C with raised median* 3 Lanes (center turn A A B B A B B B A B B C B C C C lane) 4 Lanes (two- way street with no A B C C B B C C B C C D C C C D median) 5 Lanes with refuge island OR 4 lanes A A B B A B B C B B C C B B C D with raised median* 5 Lanes (center turn A B C C B B C C C C C D C C C D lane) 6 Lanes (two- way street with* or A B D D B B D D D D D D D D D D without median) 454 Source: Guidance for Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks on Michigan State Trunkline Highways (Michigan Department of 455 Transportation, 2014) 456 Candidate site for marked crosswalk alone (standard if speed limit is 30 Condition A MPH or less, high-visibility if speed limit is 35 MPH or greater). Evaluate need for advance signing Potential candidate site for marked crosswalk. Location should be Condition B monitored & consideration given to providing a high-visibility crosswalk and/or warning signs (see Section 7.2) Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient. The crosswalk shall use a high- visibility pattern and other improvements (warning signs and/or Condition C geometric/ traffic calming improvements) (see Section 7.2) will likely be necessary. Marked crosswalks shall not be installed Condition D 457 I&I Memorandum 384.0 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT A Page A8 of A18 July 18, 2016 IIM-TE-384 – Attachment C Reference Flow Charts for Pedestrian Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations 897 Figure C4. Table 2 Flow Chart 898 I&I Memorandum 384.0 – Ped Crossing Accommodations at Unsignalized Locations – ATTACHMENT C Page C4 of C4 July 18, 2016 GE 9.3 132 178 3' NT 7' .4 . 39' 11° 10 +0 41° 0 10' 41° BU COR 485, K ST CIT RUS ORA G. 71 27' R 0 Y P S A TIO 3 D.B#0 PA 1 ID PAR N . 47" P 0'0 470 TM 001 EN R P 000 T 3" E AV PA 11 +0 PROPOSED CROSSWALK R TH RK 0 N2 OHP NO ST BU COR 240, PAR CIT RUS ORA G. 27 ST OHP R 7°1 OHP Y P S A TIO #12 OHP RE D.B 3-122 230' TO N ID PAR N 2 ORT . P H AVE 470 TM D NUE ET S OHP 1'5 EP 001 EN 13+00 13+31 7 P 12+00 200 T PARK STREET C1 (SEE NOTE 4) 121.24' K C2 9 OHP N34°50'50"W OHP DYL S OHP OH S OHP OHP OH P DY L P 36" KA CIT ERIN . NO 3 CROSSWALK TH INST 0446 R LN NA OA YP E D DW #12 OH 83 K 201 CUT ID A M N S 00 SA CU P 470 OR 10 LE N6 002 RIS IRO 391.7 . °3 101 42" @ OH 6'5 TLE OA P N R 8' K OH SCALE 1"=60' 7" SAN "PA RIST IGN CH ICK S S OD P BR E RK IAN ST CH (S) R SAN S RE UR 8 S 15' SEM TE 4 ET 120' 8.0 EA E NO SE SAN LAN 0 60' PR ENT . 6" CH 1' 42" MA ES " W HP S39 EP PL MH P=45 448.9 8.97 O CR . TO IN= T=44 AK INV OU E O INV IPT S CIT IV E YP EP 2.1 9 4 4" C °43 ID UB 1 470 LIC 002 '29" " C LA 800 LA Y ( Y ( SE NE ) W 460 460 ) 455 455 401 HEIGHT OF EYE = 3.5' .22' 450 HEIGHT OF OBJECT 450 IN CROSSWALK = 3.5' 445 VDOT SSD - 173' 445 VDOT SSD - 158' (APPROX. -7.5% GRADE) (APPROX. -0.5% GRADE) 440 440 HEIGHT OF 435 EYE = 3.5' 435 430 430 EXISTING 425 GRADE 425 8 420 420 9+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE 0 0 80 HORIZ SCALE: 1"=80' PROFILE SCALE VERT SCALE: 1"=8 STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE PROFILE - PARK STREET 1200 PARK STREET - November 15, 2021 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APPLICATION FOR A CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER APPLICATION NUMBER: P21-0126 DATE OF MEETING: December 14, 2021 Project Planner: Dannan O’Connell, AICP Date of Staff Report: December 7, 2021 Applicant: Piedmont Housing Alliance Current Property Owner: Park Street Christian Church Application Information Property Street Address: 1200 Park Street Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 470002120 (real estate taxes paid current – Sec. 34-12) Total Project Area (Limits of Disturbance): 1.55 acres Total Area of Critical Slopes on Parcels: 2.83 acres | 38.1% Area of Proposed Critical Slope Disturbance: 0.10 acres | 1.6% of total site area | 2.6% of total critical slopes area Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Map): Higher Intensity Residential Current Zoning Classification: R-1 (Developer is requesting a rezoning to PUD under ZM21- 0004) Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) Piedmont Housing Alliance has submitted a rezoning application (ZM21-0004) with a development plan dated November 15, 2021. The rezoning proposal is for approximately 7.5 acres to be rezoning to PUD to accommodate a 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 “Park Street Christian Church PUD” would allow up to fifty units split between four connected multifamily buildings at an approximate density of seven dwelling units per acre (DUA), with open space in the amount of 3.2 acres, and the following unique Page 1 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church Critical Slope characteristics/ amenities: interconnected apartment structures, parking accessed off of Cutler Lane via a private access drive, and pedestrian trails connecting to the nearby Rivanna Trail. Piedmont Housing Alliance 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 fifty residential within four 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 portions of the northmost multifamily building, graded areas surrounding the northern portion of the building, electrical/telecommunications and storm sewer placement. Existing critical slopes areas located on this Property include 2.83 acres or 38.1% 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 the above-referenced components of the definition of “critical slope”. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church 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 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: Page 3 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church Critical Slope (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. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(i) Application Finding #1: Planning Staff: The 2021 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map calls for the subject properties to be Higher Intensity Residential land use, with a residential density of 13 or more units per lot. The proposed development will have a DUA of approximately seven. The proposed building footprint will be almost entirely outside the critical slope areas. Impacts to the critical slopes comes primarily from areas around the northernmost multifamily unit which will be cleared and graded during construction, electric/telecommunications placement, Page 4 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church Critical Slope and storm sewer placement. The applicant indicates that impacts to stormwater runoff and erosion will be mitigated by underground storage facilities, level spreaders and other measures to be determined during site plan design. Alternative site layouts could reduce impacts to critical slope areas by reducing the number of residential buildings, although impacts due to electrical and storm sewer line placement would be difficult to avoid given the location of existing utility infrastructure and existing drainage patterns on the property. Staff Analysis 34-1120(b)(d)(ii) Application Finding #2 : Engineering Staff: Based on the submitted materials and the applicant’s justifications, engineering cannot recommend approval under either Finding #1 or Finding #2. The plan is not developed enough to provide specific conditions regarding Erosion and Sediment control methods and sequencing and fails to demonstrate conformance with “sound engineering practices”. City Engineering can therefore only include several recommended conditions (listed in the following section) if the Planning Commission decides to approve the project, which have been selected for their likelihood of applicability absent a functional erosion and sediment control/grading plan. 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: a. Erosion affecting the structural integrity of those features./ b. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant references general Erosion and Sediment Control measures that will protect undisturbed areas and adjacent areas during construction. The revised design now shows a rip rap channel for conveyance of the runoff to the creek in the vicinity of the property boundary. While yet to be engineered, the channel alignment is not likely to meet sound engineering practice or VSMP requirements without alignment changes, channel material changes, or both. This will not be approved without meeting these standards which would go a long way toward structural integrity and erosion-related impacts, however, decision makers should understand that an ultimately approvable design may not be in this exact alignment and may necessitate further/different critical slope disturbances. Page 5 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church Critical Slope c. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. There is a “stream” at the property boundary. It is not anticipated to be disturbed, and hopefully adequate E&S controls and compliant channel design onsite will mitigate harm to the stream. d. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. Discharges downstream of the site should remain at similar amounts due to VSMP compliance parameters. As the design progresses more information should be available about the onsite velocity and stabilization methods. There is inadequate information to address this at this time. e. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. There is no mitigation proposed for groundwater recharge due to tree removal and impervious increases. “Minimal tree removal” is noted however there does not appear to be a plan/exhibit included with the existing tree inventory overlaid on the proposed plan, or a list trees impacted. As stated in “a/b” above, the area of disturbance may change anyhow during the engineering phase. f. 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. There was not mitigation addressed for loss of natural features. “Tree removal will be minimized” is repeated in this section. Recommended Conditions City Engineering has the following recommended conditions to ensure no detrimental effects to public health and conformance with sound engineering practices: 1) Site Plans (VESCP Plans) should include, at a minimum, 4 stages/phases of ESC controls. The first phase shall include “Initial/Preliminary Controls”. Outfalls from any proposed traps shall be established with rigorous independent ESC controls, early in the sequence, prior to the establishment of a sediment trap and associated conveyances. 2) Any channels/diversions that convey ‘clear’ water shall be stabilized with sod on the ‘clear water’ side immediately after installation. 3) “Super Silt Fence” (chain linked backing) shall be installed where perimeter silt fence is specified. Page 6 of 7 P21-0126 Park Street Christian Church Critical Slope 4) 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”). 5) At no time shall concentrated water be directed toward the critical slopes without adequate conveyance down and beyond the slopes to an acceptable outfall. Suggested Motions 1. “I move to recommend approval of the critical slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 470002120, as requested, with the conditions recommended by City staff, 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 denial of the steep slope waiver for Tax Map and Parcel 470002120.” Attachments A. Application B. Narrative C. Critical Slope Exhibit Page 7 of 7 09/01/2021 09/01/2021 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: PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE Property Owner: PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH Project Description: What are you proposing to do on this site? PROVIDE SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Existing Conditions: THE SITE IS CURRENTLY HOME TO PARK STREET CHRISTIAN CHURCH Total Site Area: 7.43 ACRES Zoning (if applying for rezoning-please note existing and intended change): EXISTING: R-1 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: Critical slopes make up ___ 2.83 acres of the site’s ___ 7.43 acres, or ___ 38.1 % of the site area. *If critical slopes extend beyond property line, quantify total critical slope area as well as provide area of critical slope that falls within site area. Critical Slope Area Disturbed: ___ 0.19 acres of the total critical slope area identified above will be disturbed, or ___ 6.7 % of the total critical slope area. Proposed critical slope area to be disturbed is ___ 2.6 % 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. 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 slope disturbance, while ________________________________________________________________________ providing the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed housing and facilities on the site. The development will provide 50 affordable housing units for seniors ________________________________________________________________________ which is critically needed in our region. Critical slope disturbance shall remain ________________________________________________________________________ minimal and keep in mind the surrounding environment to maintain aesthetics to ________________________________________________________________________ ensure minimal community impacts. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 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 site is situated such that it has steep grades down to Park Street and Moores Creek. In order to construct the proposed buildings as well as appropriate ________________________________________________________________________ stormwater management measures, there is a small portion of the slopes must be ________________________________________________________________________ impacted. These impacts will be minimal as to ensure community aesthetics remain ________________________________________________________________________ as much as possible. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 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. Structural practices such as division dikes, silt ________________________________________________________________________ fence, sediment traps and inlet protection will capture concentrated flow and sediment at the top of the slopes and divert it to a stabilized outfall. A phased erosion and sediment control plan during the site plan phase will be considered to ensure that sound engineering practices are being met as to not undermine the site, and concentrated flow and sediment is managed to not impact additional critical slopes or off site areas. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts on adjacent properties. ________________________________________________________________________ Stormwater and erosion- related impacts are limited by the detention of site runoff within ________________________________________________________________________ proposed underground storage facilities. Wooded areas are being preserved wherever possible to to help minimize impacts. Erosion and sediment control measures will be ________________________________________________________________________ employed to ensure adjacent properties are not impacted by stormwater runoff during ________________________________________________________________________ construction. A multiple phase erosion and sediment control plan will be in place to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum. 3. Stormwater and erosion-related impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as streams and wetlands. ________________________________________________________________________ Wetland disturbance and Stream disturbance is not proposed or if needed. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Increased stormwater velocity due to loss of vegetation. ________________________________________________________________________ Detention is being provided through the use of a proposed underground storage ________________________________________________________________________ facility which limits the volumetric flow rate and velocity of stormwater runoff which discharges from the site. Conveying the stormwater down the slope in a stabilized ________________________________________________________________________ channel will will mitigate any increased velocity. ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Decreased groundwater recharge due to changes in site hydrology. ________________________________________________________________________ Minimal tree removal and returning all of the areas possible to green space will also help mitigate the 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. ________________________________________________________________________ Tree removal will be minimized to the extent possible to construct the project. The preservation of the trees to remain will and the formalized trails, and open space will ________________________________________________________________________ help to allow future access and benefit to the community. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Please list all attachments that should be viewed as support to the above explanations. Critical Slopes Exhibit and Erosion Control Details in PUD Supplemental information. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Please sign the following statement. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the information I have provided above is based on sound engineering and surveying data and that this site has been carefully inspected and reviewed for the purposes of completing this application accurately. I certify that as the property owner/applicant I have not given false information that may affect the decisions made regarding this development. Property Owner Applicant Please do not write below this line. For office use only. Planner’s Comments/Recommendations: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Engineer’s Comments/Recommendations: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 406 37 410 P 40 OH 6 410MATCHLINE 40 LIMITS OF 0 (34-1120(b)(2)) 37 P OH 5 DISTURBANCE 5 DEFINITION OF CRITICAL SLOPE. A CRITICAL SLOPE IS ANY SLOPE WHOSE GRADE IS 25% 01200 CITY PID 4700 TMENT 41 OR GREATER AND: 6 370 AR BURRUSS AP ION HP 420 41 G EASEMENT FOR THE DISTURBED CRITICAL CORPORAT 27 O 5 IDTH GRADIN RGINIA VARIABLE W COMMONWEALTH OF VI . 736 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 D.B. 240, PG. RK ST D.B. 420, PG 5 MEADOW #1223-1227 PA 425 SLOPES 36 B. A PORTION OF THE SLOPE IS WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF ANY WATERWAY CREEK P AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MOST CURRENT CITY TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS MAINTAINED BY OH 426 THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. 390 41 EXISTING CRITICAL 2.79 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE ON SITE 0 P 40 OH 0.00 AC OF EXISTING CRITICAL SLOPE OFF SITE SLOPES PER ORD. 0.05 AC OF CRITICAL SLOPE DISTURBANCE 0 0.00 AC DISTURBANCE FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (34-1120(b)(2)) 430 350 NOTE: OHP THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SHALL BE STAKED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR. TREE 0 420 PROTECTION FENCING SHALL BE APPLIED 1' OFF OF LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WITH WIRE 42 434 SUPPORTED SILT FENCE 3' OFF OF THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SEE SHEET 27 FOR DETAILS. 42 TIVE PUBLIC 15' PRESCRIP 0 P OH EASEMENT. 435 43 SEE NOTE 4. 42 0 436 43 2 5 5 42 440 424 394 42 S OH 444 4 438 P 44 445 0 5 444 410 35 34 OH 44 42 448 6 8 42 5 P 6 SA ET 450 427 N 452 TRE OH 450 X 448 450 4) X 400 0 P 5 44 OTE X 44 KS 454 430 S W EN 36 OH 455 45 36 454 0 4 (SE PAR P MHS HVAC 37 (UNDER) 5 TOP=452.11 37 455 0 4" CLAY (NE) INV IN=448.99 4" CLAY (SE) 38 24" 5 7 38 0 INV OUT=448.9 DEC 5 0 #1200B 26" DEC 45 5 39 1 STORY BRICK S 458 DEC 460 W/ BSMT. 460 34" OAK 36" DEC 466465 (2) 462 OHP SAN OHP 60" OAK 46 41 445 0 0 GRASS GRASS 467 36" OAK W #1200 G 44 1 STORY BRICK 46 LSA LSA 5 66 435 W/ BSMT. 0 6" MAPLE LSA 460 S 46 0 4LS 438 A 0 LSA 43 42" OAK 46 456 T 4 OHP 30" OHP 46 OHP MAPLE 466 441 6 2 467 446 38 60" OAK 2" MAPLE 36" POPLAR 390 5 439 40 380 450 452 46 443 5 442 P 466 OH 455 465 388 G 378 4 450 38 36" OAK OHP 438 31 OHP 468 46 468 OHP OHP 4 SAN 374 7 43 44 6" MAPLE 415 440 W 44 420 44 0 8 P 5 0 44 3" MAPLE 4" MAPLE OH 4 42" OAK 4" MAPLE 3" MAPLE 10" MAPLE 6 44 (2) (2) 46 406 8 37 40 X OHP 41MATCHLINE 6 40 OH 0 O 0 37 5 HP 465 P 5 X 442 SAN P 435 S S OH 41 452 440 OH 000 370 THE CUTLER LANE X CITY PID 4700 02 5 VARIABLE WIDT H GRADING EA SEMENT FOR P CRITICAL SLOPES EXHIBIT SCALE 1"=50' PAGE 2 1200 PARK STREET - September 3, 2021 83 0 50' 100' D Revised - November 15, 2021 NA