Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, September 13, 2022 at 5:30 P.M. Hybrid Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT i. Report of the Nominating Committee ii. Officer Elections D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) i. Minutes – August 31, 2021 – Work Session G. FY 2022-2023 CDBG Substantial Action Plan Amendment to the Consolidated Plan 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. ZM22-00002 – Mount View PUD – Shimp Engineering, on behalf of Mount View Baptist Church, Mount View Properties, LLC, and Route 250 Houses, LLC, (collectively, the “Owners”), the owners of the properties, has submitted a Rezoning Petition for 908 St. Clair Avenue, 1133 Otter Street, 1221 Landonia Circle, and 1201 Landonia Circle, also identified on City Real Property Tax Map 49 as Parcels 65, 72.1, 72, and 73 or Tax Map Parcels 490065000, 490072100, 490072000, and 490073000. (the “Subject Properties”). The Subject Properties have frontage on St. Clair Avenue, Otter Street, Landonia Circle, and River Vista Avenue, and contain approximately 3.4 acres or 148,100 square feet. The petition proposes a change in zoning from R-2 Two-Family Residential (current zoning) to Planned Unit Development or PUD (proposed zoning) subject to certain proffered development conditions (“Proffers”) and the development plan submitted by Shimp Engineering on behalf of the Owners. This rezoning would allow the creation of a PUD referred to as “Mount View PUD” compromised of two blocks (“Block 1” and “Block 2”) and containing up to 72 dwelling units at an approximate density of 22 dwelling units per acre (DUA). 60 multifamily residential units in six (6) structures up to 35 feet in height are proposed for Block 2. The opportunity for additional permitted uses is proposed for Block 1 including the possibility of 12 dwelling units; which may be single-family, two-family, or multifamily dwellings; daycare facilities, outdoor parks and playgrounds, art studios/workshops, consumer services businesses up to 2,000 square feet, and retail uses up to 2,000 square feet. However, no additional uses beyond the existing house of worship in Block 1 are proposed at this time. The following characteristics/ amenities are proposed in the development plan: 60 multifamily residential units within six (6) buildings that are three (3) stories in height, including one (1) partially exposed basement story, vehicular access provided from both Landonia Circle and River Vista for Block 2, a central open space located within Block 2 and accessible from Block 1 via pedestrian facilities, a multi-use path 10 feet in width connecting the improved area of Otter Street with Landonia Circle within the Otter Street right-of-way, and landscaped screening buffers adjacent to neighboring properties on River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle. The general usage specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Subject Properties is General Residential. The Proffers state that: (1) four (4) residential units constructed within the area of the property shall be Affordable Dwelling Units accessible to residents with income below 65% of the area median income with affordability provisions guaranteed for 10 years through recorded covenants; (2) three (3) residential units constructed within the area of property shall be Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA and reserved for rental to residents with income below 80% of the area median income with affordability provisions guaranteed for 10 years through recorded covenants; (3) the required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 55th residential unit; (4) after a period of 90 days of marketing the Affordable Dwelling Units and Workforce Dwelling Units, if no lease agreement is executed with a tenant meeting the household income requirements then no household income limit restrictions will apply; (5) construction entrances for site development and construction on the Property shall not be permitted to connect to River Vista Avenue; and (6) a screening fence shall be installed in the location shown on the development plan and may be comprised of masonry, composite, painted or stained lumber, or alternative material as approved by the Director of Neighborhood Development Services, with chain link and screening mesh specifically prohibited. This screening fence shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height unless a lesser height is agreed upon by the Owners and owners of adjacent properties where the screening fence is installed along the common boundary line and a record of said agreement is provided to the Director of Neighborhood Development Services. If at the time of construction of the screening fence an adjacent property owner has erected a fence along the common boundary line, the screening fence requirement may be waived in the location where the adjacent owner’s fence is constructed, and the screening fence must be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within Block 2, with the limits of Block 2 depicted on the development plan. Information pertaining to this application, including the staff report and materials submitted by the applicant, may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the rezoning application may contact NDS Planner Carrie Rainey by e-mail (raineyc@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3453). IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday September 27, 2022 – 5:30PM Work Joint session with City Council on Session Zoning Diagnostic and Approach document. Tuesday October 11, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday October 11, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - September 14, 2021, Meeting October 11, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 1113 5th Street SW Car Wash Site Plan - 1223 Harris, Lyndhall Apartments 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) Rezoning and SUP – 0 Carlton Road, 1120 Avon Street Major Subdivision – Preston Commons (Robinson Place) Critical Slopes Waiver – Belmont Condominiums, Azalea Springs Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 240 Stribling Ave. Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass, 901 Seminole Trail Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Manufactured Housing Future Entrance Corridor • 1815 JPA - New apartment building (Wassenaar+Winkler Architects) • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) Transportation Prioritization Presentation – November 2022 Climate Action Plan – Fall 2022 Capital Improvement Program – Work Session – November 22, 2022, Hearing – December 13, 2022 PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom . You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 8/1/2022 TO 8/31/2022 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans 3. Site Plan Amendments a. 517 Rugby Road (Delta Sigma Phi) – Amendment #1 – August 26, 2022 4. Subdivision a. 209 Maury Avenue (BLA) – August 10, 2022 b. 1805 Chesapeake Street (BLA) – August 15, 2022 c. Rialto Beach PUD (lots 10 & 11) (BLA) – August 29, 2022 August 31, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes are included as the last documents in this packet. City of Charlottesville MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator of Charlottesville DATE: September 13, 2022 SUBJECT: FY 2022-2023 CDBG Substantial Action Plan Amendment to the Consolidated Plan As part of the CDBG public participation process, the Planning Commission must provide recommendations to City Council on all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations. Attached you will find the proposed allocations for FY 2022-2023 CDBG programs. These recommendations are based on the CDBG Task Force recommendations for Housing and Ridge Priority Neighborhood infrastructure improvements. Attached you will also find copies of meeting minutes where these recommendations were made. This includes a memo of explanation and a list of all the projects reviewed as a result of the competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Following the public hearing, staff is asking for a recommendation to City Council concerning the CDBG budget allocations. The budget allocations will later be included in the FY22-23 Substantial Annual Action Plan Amendment for HUD submittal. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Erin Atak at (434) 970-3093 or email atake@charlottesville.gov. Cc: City Council Mr. Sam Sanders, Deputy City Manager for Operations Alexander Ikefuna, Director of Office of Community Solutions CDBG Task Force City of Charlottesville MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator of Charlottesville DATE: September 13, 2022 SUBJECT: FY 2022-2023 CDBG Substantial Action Plan Amendment to the Consolidated Plan CDBG Project Recommendations for FY 2022-2023: The CDBG substantial Action Plan Amendment totals $178,394.34 for the 2022-2023 program year. Minutes from the meetings are attached which outline the recommendations made. It is important to note that all projects went through an extensive review by the CDBG/HOME Task Force as a result of a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process. On September 21, 2021, City Council set priorities for the FY22-23 CDBG Program which included prioritizing access to affordable housing (including but not limited to low income housing redevelopment), workforce development (including but not limited to efforts to bolster Section 3 training opportunities and partnerships with the City’s GO programs), microenterprise assistance, access to quality childcare, homeowner rehabilitation, and down payment assistance. The CDBG/HOME competitive Request for Proposals was based on the 2022-2023 City Council’s CDBG/HOME priorities, the 2018-2022 Consolidated Plan, Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan, and HUD’s CDBG/HOME national priorities. Priority Neighborhood – On September 21, 2021, Council approved Ridge Street to be the Priority Neighborhood. The Taskforce recommended the Department of Parks and Recreation Pollocks Branch Trail Bridge at Jordon Park. Estimated benefits include the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian ADA accessible bridge to connect Jordon Park to the developing Moores Creek trail between Avon Street and 5th Street. CDBG Housing Programs – The Taskforce recommended the Arc of the Piedmont for a HVAC replacement of their Shamrock Group Home. Estimated benefits include the replacement of a 30- year-old HVAC system in the Shamrock Road Group Home benefitting up to seven developmentally disabled individuals. Suggested Motion: I move to recommend approval of the Substantial Amendment to the FY 2022-2023 Acton Plan, to authorize the City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation and the Arc of the Piedmont to receive funding to implement programs as scoped within the request for proposal submissions. Attachments: Proposed FY 22-23 CDBG and HOME budgets FY 22-23 List of RFPs received CDBG/HOME Task Force Minutes CDBG/HOME Taskforce Rubric Applicant Average Score Funding Request TF Funding Recommendations Parks and Rec 31.5 $ 170,000.00 $ 171,655.34 Arc of Piedmont 32.50 $ 6,739.00 $ 6,739.00 $ 176,739.00 $ 178,394.34 Funding Available $ 178,394.34 2022-2023 CDBG & HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS RECOMMENDED BY CDBG/HOME TASKFORCE: 7/27/2022 RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL A. PRIORITY NEIGHBORHOOD A. Pollocks Branch Trail Bridge $ 171,655.34 B. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS A. Community Investment Collaborative - Micro Scholarships $ 23,929.34 B. Local Energy Alliance Program - Workforce Development $ 28,839.64 C. PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS (15% CAP) A. Public Housing Association of Residents $ 35,903.90 B. Literacy Volunteers of Charlottesville/Albemarle $ 26,332.15 D. HOUSING PROJECTS A. Local Energy Alliance Program - Solar Energy Maintenance $ 38,526.23 B. Arc of the Piedmont - HVAC Replacement $6,739.00 E. ADMINISTRATION/PLANNING (20% CAP) A. Admin/Planning $ 82,981.40 Grand Total $ 414,907.00 Entitlement Award $ 414,907.00 2022-2023 HOME BUDGET ALLOCATIONS A.Local Energy Alliance Program - Assisted HOME Performance $ 93,478.13 Total $ 93,478.13 Entitlement Award $ 93,478.13 Local Match $ 23,369.53 Community Development Block Grant/HOME Taskforce Wednesday, July 27th, 2022 4-5PM Virtual Meeting (Zoom) AGENDA 1. Housekeeping a. Erin Atak (EA), Grants Coordinator: Explained to the Taskforce that the FY2022- 2023 Action Plan was submitted and the City was pending HUD approval. b. Attendance was taken. Name Attendance Nancy Carpenter Absent – sent in funding recommendations Helen Sporkin Present Matthew Gillikin Present Connor Brew Absent – sent in funding recommendations James Bryant Present Kem Lea Spaulding Absent Howard Evergreen Present Emily Cone Miller Absent Taneia Dowell Absent 2. CDBG Scores The committee received two applications for consideration. Discussion started with the Parks and Recreation application on the Pollocks Branch Trail Bridge at Jordon Park. EA states the application satisfied the Ridge Street Priority Neighborhood requirement of creating communities that are boke and pedestrian accessible. The Park does not require a site plan submission but will need a storm water and erosion sediment control component attached Staff Contact: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator (atake@charlottesville.gov), (434) 970-3093 according to staff. HUD Davis Bacon and Section 3 requirements will also get triggered with the activity. Connor Brew, CB, mentioned that he had some concerns about whether there was outreach done with the community. EA stated that the applicant, Chris Gensic, replied stating that he had contacted the Ridge Street residents with regards to the project. He is also in the process of reaching out to the Jackson School. Matthew Gillikin, MG, asked about the timeliness on the project. EA states that there is CIP finding with the activity and that there are no concerns with timeliness with staff on board. The floodplain requirement is also not triggered which is a bonus. Helen Sporkin, HS, states that this is a worthy project with no concerns. James Bryant, JB, asked about the timeline about the project. EA the applicant is aiming for one year from September this year. Discussion now turns to the Arc of the Piedmont application. EA explains that this application was initially submitted under the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Fund NOFA and was later redirected to CDBG. EA explains that the Arc of the Piedmont was a prior recipient of CDBG funds with no timeliness concerns. No past audit concerns with their former contract. HS states that there was not much of a budget but assumes that there is a quote for the HVAC replacement. EA states that it is the $6,000 HVAC replacement. CB recommended fully funding the Arc of the Piedmont and allocating the remaining funds to the Parks of Recreation application. The rest of the Taskforce agreed on CB’s funding recommendation. 3. Public Comment None was received, no members of the public were present. Meeting adjourned. Staff Contact: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator (atake@charlottesville.gov), (434) 970-3093 Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator (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 can be made. Staff Contact: Erin Atak, Grants Coordinator (atake@charlottesville.gov), (434) 970-3093 SCORING RUBRIC FOR HOME PROPOSALS Name of Applicant: Name of Project: Exemplary Adequate Needs Missing Score Comments Improvement Information (3 Points) (2 Points) (1 Point) (0 Points) Program/Project Provides a clear Provides a description Program/project Proposal does not Description description and clearly that adequately description needs describe how it will explains how it will explains how it will improvement address a Council address a Council address a Council Priority Priority Priority Program/Project Provides a clear Provides an adequate Program/Project goal Goal is missing Goal explanation of the goal. explanation of the goal needs improvement. and/or not Identifies what will be Barely identifies what explained. provided to whom, how will be provided to Identification of many. Provides whom and how beneficiaries, demographic many. Barely number of information of the provides beneficiaries, beneficiaries and how demographic demographic they will meet the information and how information, and income guidelines the beneficiaries will information about meet the income how the guidelines beneficiaries will meet the income guidelines is missing Need Clearly describes how Adequately describes Description of need Does not describe the program will how the program will needs improvement. how the program directly address the directly address the Only state, regional, will directly address needs. needs using some local or national data the needs and/or 1 Provides local data to data to describe the provided, data not does not provide describe the needs of needs of the specific to clients data to describe the the community and the community and the needs of the beneficiaries beneficiaries community and the beneficiaries Outcomes Clearly explains how Adequately explains Explanation of how Does not explain proposed outcomes will how proposed proposed outcomes how proposed be meaningful, client- outcomes will be will be meaningful, outcomes will be focused and related to meaningful, client- client-focused and meaningful, client- the service focused and related to related to the service focused and/or the service needs improvement related to the service Strategies Provides evidence- Adequately describes Describes how Does not identify based strategies for how strategies address strategies address how strategies how the need using researched need without directly address program/project will best practices information about need address the need strategies at a best practices or minimum research Implementation Timeline is detailed and Timeline is adequate Timeline is limited or No timeline Timeline realistic not realistic provided and information is missing Evaluation Plan Provides a rigorous Provides a solid Evaluates some Proposal does not evaluation plan which evaluation plan elements of its work, provide an informs ongoing work, but the evaluation is evaluation plan or explains metrics and not thorough the plan is why they are used insufficient Demographic Proposal clearly Proposal adequately Proposal describes Proposal does not Verification describes how the describes how the how the agency will describe how the agency will collect and agency will collect and collect and verify agency will collect verify all required verify all required some required and verify any information information information required information 2 Financial Proposal describes how Proposal describes how Proposal describes Proposal does not Benefits the program fully the program fully how the program describe how the meets two financial meets one financial partially meets one to program will provide benefits benefit two financial benefits a financial benefit Collaboration Proposal describes how Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal does not the program formal agreements collaboration describe collaborates with other with more than two informally with other collaboration with organizations to organizations organizations (ex. other entities achieve a common goal describing how they information sharing, using defined cooperate, but does resource sharing) deliverables and not share common metrics (ex. Clear deliverables or metrics. accountability, shared management, such as MOU’s or formal partnership agreements) Engagement/ Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal explains Proposal does not Outreach complete outreach and some outreach and that services are provide strategies Strategy engagement strategies engagement strategies available to needy for outreach and and explains how it will and how it will serve and underserved engagement to serve needy and needy and underserved populations but needy and underserved populations program/project does underserved populations not conduct outreach populations or engagement Priority Proposal describes Proposal describes Proposal explains Proposal does not Neighborhood complete outreach some outreach and that services are provide strategies Ridge Street strategies and program/project serves available to priority for outreach to program/project serves residents in the Priority neighborhood priority residents in the Priority Neighborhood residents but neighborhood Neighborhood program/project does residents not conduct outreach 3 Organizational Organization Organization Organization capacity The organization Capacity demonstrated demonstrated needs improvement, demonstrated a lack (STAFF ONLY) sufficient capacity and adequate capacity and did not meet of a capacity fully met projected almost met projected projected outcomes outcomes in previous outcomes in previous grant year grant year Organizational Proposal provides clear Proposal provides Evidence of capacity Proposal does not Capacity evidence of the adequate evidence of and ability needs provide evidence of capacity and ability to the capacity and ability improvement. Does the capacity and ensure timely to ensure timely not address the ability performance and performance and question fully reporting reporting Budget Proposal clearly Proposal provides an Proposed budget The proposal does demonstrates: adequate budget. needs improvement not demonstrate A. How requested Adequately addresses and barely addresses how the requested funds will be A, B, and C A, B, and/or C. funds will be applied applied to Proposed budget to expense line expense line needs improvement. items, how the items amount requested is B. How the reasonable, and amount does not show a requested is direct relationship reasonable with proposed C. That the overall service items program budget shows a direct relationship with proposed service items TOTAL SCORE (MAX SCORE = 42 PTS) 4 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: ZM22‐00002 DATE OF HEARING: September 13, 2022 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey, RLA, AICP Date of Staff Report: September 6, 2022 Applicant: Shimp Engineering, P.C. Applicants Representative: Kelsey Schlein (Shimp Engineering, P.C.) Current Property Owners: Mount View Baptist Church, Mount View Properties, LLC, and Route 250 Houses, LLC (collectively the “Owners”) Application Information Property Street Address: 908 St. Clair Avenue, 1133 Otter Street, 1221 Landonia Circle, and 1201 Landonia Circle (the “Subject Properties”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: Tax Map Parcels 490065000, 490072100, 490072000, and 490073000 (real estate taxes paid current for 490065000 and 490073000, delinquent for 490072100 and 490072000 ‐ Sec. 34‐10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 3.4 acres (approximately 148,100 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): General Residential Current Classification: R‐2 (Two Family Residential) Proposed Zoning Classification: PUD (Planned Unit Development) Overlay District: None Completeness: The application generally contains all of the information required by Zoning Ordinance (Z.O.) Sec. 34‐41 and (Z.O.) Sec. 34‐490. Other Approvals Required: Sidewalk waiver for River Vista Avenue (City Council) Applicant’s Request (Summary) Kelsey Schlein (of Shimp Engineering, PC, the Owners’ agent) has submitted an application pursuant to Section 34‐490 seeking a zoning map amendment to change the zoning district classifications of the above parcels of land. The application proposes to change the zoning Page 1 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD classification of the Subject Property from “R‐2” (Two‐Family Residential) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development) subject to proffered development conditions. Vicinity Map Context Map 1 Page 2 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Context Map 2‐ Zoning Classifications KEY ‐ Orange: R‐2, Pink: B‐1, Purple: Central City Corridor, Red: B‐2, Yellow: R‐1S Context Map 3‐ Future Land Use Map, 2021 Comprehensive Plan KEY: Blue: Education, Brown: Medium Intensity Residential, Pink: Neighborhood Mixed Use Node, Purple: Urban Mixed Use Corridor, Yellow: General Residential Page 3 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Rezoning Standard of Review Under Section 34‐41, City Council may grant an applicant a rezoning request and should consider several factors set forth within Section 34‐42. The role of the Planning Commission is to 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 Section 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 (PUD) Standard of Review When evaluating a proposed PUD, in addition to the general considerations laid out in Section 34‐42, City Council and the Planning Commission should also consider certain factors specific to the construction of a PUD. Section 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; Page 4 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View 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; 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; 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 Sections 34‐42, 34‐41(d), and 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 with which the request may be in line: a. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Objectives for Residential Areas: Increase opportunities to develop diverse housing options near schools, parks, shopping districts, and employment centers. Goal 3: 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. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan with which the request may not comply: a. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Objectives for Residential Areas: Encourage incremental “house‐sized,” contextual infill within existing residential neighborhoods. b. Transportation Strategy 1.4: Address traffic calming needs to create safer streets in collaboration with neighborhood residents and as part of the development process. Comprehensive Plan‐ Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of the Subject Properties to PUD to accommodate a different type of housing unit (multifamily) that is not currently allowed in R‐2 zoning Page 5 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD districts. The proposal does meet some goals of the Comprehensive Plan by providing additional housing options within the neighborhood and in proximity to Burnley‐Moran Elementary School and commercial properties on Long Street (Route 250 Bypass). However, staff is concerned that while the proposed development includes multiple smaller buildings, these buildings are not “house‐sized” in relation to the surrounding neighborhood and no improvements are proposed for existing streets such as River Vista Avenue beyond the entrance to the development. The 2021 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the Subject Properties as General Residential. General Residential allows additional housing choice within existing residential neighborhoods. Form should be compatible with current context, including house‐sized structures with similar ground floor footprint area and setbacks as surrounding residential structures. Up to 3‐unit dwellings including existing single‐family splits, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and new housing infill are noted as uses. 4‐unit dwellings are also permitted if the existing structure is maintained. General Residential recommends allowance of additional units and height under an affordability bonus program or other zoning mechanism. Staff finds that the proposed number of residential units do not meet the limits of the General Residential category and the proposed ground floor footprint areas are larger than those of surrounding residential structures. Streets that Work Plan‐ Staff Analysis: The PUD Development Plan proposes improvements to portions of the Landonia Circle, River Vista Avenue, and Otter Street rights‐of‐way. These portions of the existing rights‐of‐ way indicated for improvement have not been accepted by City Council and any improvements will need to meet the City’s design standards and requirements. St. Clair Avenue, River Vista Avenue, Otter Street, and Landonia Circle are all designated as Local Streets in the Plan. Local Streets are found throughout the City and provide immediate access to all types of land uses. Although Local Streets form the majority of the street network, there is no specific typology associated with them. This is due in part to the many variations in context and rights‐of‐way, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets that do not meet current engineering and fire code standards. Local Streets do not have priorities and Neighborhood A or B design element priorities, as laid out in the Streets that Work Plan, should be evaluated when determining design elements. The Streets that Work Plan notes the highest priority design elements for Neighborhood A Streets are sidewalks with a minimum of 5 to 6 feet of clear zone and bicycle facilities such as 5 feet bike lanes and 6 feet climbing lanes. On‐street parking is also a high priority for Neighborhood A Streets. The PUD Development Page 6 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Plan shows a proposed sidewalk on one side of River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle within the limits of the development, which does not meet Streets that Work Plan recommendations or City requirements. The applicant has provided a sidewalk waiver for River Vista Avenue at the entrance to the development, which will be heard and decided by City Council. Proposed improvements to Landonia Circle (including lack of sidewalk on one side, non‐standard roadway width, and non‐standard roadway grade) must either be updated to meet City standards or receive an innovative design waiver from the City Engineer prior to site plan approval. However, the existing sidewalk network on River Vista Avenue is incomplete and Landonia Circle does not provide an existing sidewalk network. Staff is concerned that the proposal does not include completing the sidewalk network on the southern side of River Vista Avenue (where the development is located) or providing pedestrian access from the development to Long Street (Route 250 Bypass) via Landonia Circle and therefore does not meet the recommendations of the Streets that Work Plan. The PUD Development Plan does propose on‐street parking on Landonia Circle in line with the priorities noted in the Streets that Work Plan. A multi‐use trail is proposed for the Otter Street right‐of‐way, which can subsequently be considered for acceptance as a public facility by City Council if applicable standards are met. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan‐ Staff Analysis: The 2015 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan designated St. Clair Avenue as a proposed shared roadway bicycle facility. The Master Plan also recommends sidewalk installation on the western side of St. Clair Avenue. No improvements are proposed for St. Clair Avenue in the PUD Development Plan. However, the proposed multi‐use trail in the Otter Street right‐ of‐way would provide a connection from the development to St. Clair Avenue. 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 zoning change from R‐2 Two‐Family Residential to PUD with proposed proffers, as described in the application materials, could benefit the community by providing a balance of housing types in this area of the City. 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 portion of the City should be General Residential and allow additional housing choice of up to 4‐unit dwellings within existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed PUD proposes 12 residential units in Block 1 and 60 multifamily residential units in Block 2. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning does not align with the 2021 Future Land Use Map. Page 7 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD 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. Staff is concerned the proposed streets, in particular Landonia Circle, as designed and presented in the application materials, will not be acceptable as a publicly maintained street. Staff notes that a site plan for the development could not be approved unless and until the design of the public streets meets the City’s standards and requirements. The Subject Properties and most of the surrounding properties are currently zoned R‐2 Two‐ Family Residential District. The R‐2 district was established to enhance the variety of housing opportunities available within certain low‐density residential areas of the city, and to provide and protect those areas. The R‐2 district consists of quiet, low‐density residential areas in which single‐family attached and two‐family dwellings are encouraged. Zoning Comparison Chart: Physical Characteristics Current R‐2 Zoning Proposed PUD Zoning Physical Characteristics Physical Characteristics Block 1 Block 2 Front Setback 25’ min 25’ min St. Claire 3’ min Otter Street Avenue 3’ min River Vista Avenue 15’ min Otter Street 3’ and 20’ min Landonia Circle (see PUD Development Plan) Side Setback 5’ min (Single Family 10’ min 10’ min Detached) 10’ min (Single Family Attached) 10’ min (Two‐family) 50’ min (Non‐ residential) 20’ min (Corner Street Side) Rear Setback 25’ min (Residential) No minimum 10’ min Page 8 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD 50’ min (Non‐ residential) Land Coverage No limit outside No limit outside No limit outside setbacks setbacks setbacks Height 35’ max 35’ max 35’ max Min Lot Size 6,000sqft (Single Family None specified None specified Detached) 2,000sqft (average of 3,600sqft) (Single Family Attached) 7,200sqft (Two‐family) No requirement (Non‐ residential) Road Frontage 50’ (Single Family None specified None specified Detached and Two‐ family) 20’ (Single Family Attached) No requirement (Non‐ residential) Parking 1 space per residential None specified None specified unit, Non‐residential per (development will (development will follow Section 34‐984 follow Section 34‐984) Section 34‐984) Zoning Comparison Chart: Uses Residential Use (By Proposed Allowances) R‐2 PUD Block 1 PUD Block 2 Accessory apartment, internal P B Accessory apartment, external P B Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B B Adult assisted living (1‐8 residents) B B Dwellings ‐ Single‐family attached B B Dwellings ‐ Single‐family detached B B Dwellings ‐ Two‐family B B Dwellings – Multifamily B B Family day home 1 – 5 children B B B Family day home 6 – 12 children S S S Home occupation P P P Residential occupancy ‐ 3 unrelated persons B B B Residential occupancy ‐ 4 unrelated persons B B B Key‐ B: By‐Right, P: Provisional Use Permit, S: Special Use Permit Non‐Residential Use (By Proposed Allowances) R‐2 PUD Block 1 PUD Block 2 General and Misc. Commercial Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B Page 9 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Art Studio, GFA 4,000 square feet or less B Art workshop B House of worship B B B Temporary outdoor assembly T T Daycare facility S B Offices, property management B Surface parking lot A A Surface parking lot, 20 or more spaces A A Temporary parking facilities T T Outdoor recreational facilities (parks, B B B playgrounds, ball fields and courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc.), city‐owned Outdoor recreational facilities (parks, S B B playgrounds, ball fields and courts, swimming pools, picnic shelters, etc.), privately‐owned Utility Lines B B B Retail Accessory buildings, structures and uses B B Consumer service businesses, up to 2,000 B square feet GFA Temporary outdoor sales (flea markets, craft T fairs, promotional sales, etc.) Other retail sales, non‐specified, up to 2,000 B square feet GFA Key‐ A: Ancillary Use, B: By‐Right, GFA: Gross Floor Area, P: Provisional Use Permit, S: Special Use Permit, T: Temporary Use Permit Zoning History of the Subject Properties Year Zoning District 1949 A‐1 Residence 1958 R‐2 Residential 1976 R‐2 Residential 1991 R‐2 Residential 2003 R‐2 Residential Page 10 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD The Subject Properties are bordered by: Direction Use Zoning North Single family house R‐2 South Single family house/Bank R‐2, B‐1 East Single family house/Two‐family R‐2 West Single family house R‐1S Staff Analysis: Staff finds the proposed physical characteristics of the PUD generally align with the allowable characteristics of the surrounding R‐2 Two‐Family Residential District. The proposed maximum height aligns with the allowable maximum height in the R‐2 district. Staff is concerned that the setbacks for the PUD are smaller than is permitted in the R‐2 district, but the PUD Development Plan proposes dispersing the multifamily residential units throughout Block 2 in several smaller buildings of a scale more similar to the neighborhood and proposes landscaped and fenced buffering to minimize the impact of reduced setbacks on the surrounding community. Staff finds the proposed multifamily residential use is not in line with the purpose of the R‐2 district but does align with some objectives of the PUD district such as promoting a variety of housing types. Staff is concerned that uses such as daycare facilities, which currently require a Special Use Permit (SUP) in the R‐2 district, would be permitted by‐right in the PUD and would not be subject to the additional review provided by the SUP process. The City Traffic Engineer has noted that the majority of generated traffic shown in the Traffic Impact Study (Attachment D) is created by the proposed daycare facility use. Staff is concerned that the by‐right development of a daycare facility could create unmitigated impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The additional non‐residential uses proposed in the PUD Development Plan are generally limited to Block 1 and are of a smaller scale but may still impact the neighborhood. Section 34‐501(a)(2) requires any non‐residential uses proposed (such as art workshops, consumer services, and general retail uses) to be at least 75‐feet away from the perimeter of the PUD. However, these uses may impact neighborhood traffic patterns regardless of their location within the PUD development. The Traffic Impact Study provides analysis for Block 1 for the house of worship (10,000 square feet), a daycare facility (4,000 square feet), and 12 multifamily residential units. The Study indicates that peak hour trips on St. Clair Avenue would increase from 38 to 96 but takes into account that many patrons of the daycare facility are likely to walk from the surrounding neighborhood or access St. Clair Avenue from Long Street (Route 250 Bypass). The Study indicates the increased traffic can be managed without adverse impacts to the neighborhood, but other potential non‐residential uses permitted in the PUD Development Plan are not accounted for in the Study. Regarding Block 2, the Study indicates River Vista Avenue currently Page 11 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD has 24 peak hour trips which would be increased by the proposed development to between 38 and 42 trips during peak hours. The Study indicates Landonia Circle currently experiences 29 trips during morning peak hours and 60 trips during evening peak hours. The proposed development will increase morning peak hour trips to 47 and evening peak hour trips to 83 on Landonia Circle. The Study indicates River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle can effectively handle the increase in traffic. The City Traffic Engineer has noted that the vast majority of traffic impact for what the Study shows is driven by the daycare use, not from the residential uses. The City Traffic Engineer finds that the surrounding streets could sustain the development including the daycare facility, but notes the daycare is the main traffic generator in this scenario. Planned Unit Development Standard of Review Section 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; While the proposed development is not permitted in the existing R‐2 Two‐Family Residential District, staff finds the development of multifamily residential units at this location, with the architectural features and sizes proposed, would be comparable in quality to multifamily residential units located in other areas of the City that are by‐ right. Staff does find that the addition of open space accessible from both blocks of the PUD development does introduce elements that are of a higher quality than a new subdivision of single‐family or two‐family homes under the R‐2 district standards, or construction of multifamily residential units under City standards within a different zoning district at this location. 2. To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. Staff does not find the proposed development to be designed in a particularly innovative arrangement with regard to building placement, open space, or environmentally sensitive design. While proposing the multifamily residential units within several smaller buildings better fits the context of the surrounding neighborhood, staff notes most of the proposed residential units are separated from the central greenspace by surface parking lots and include minimal building‐adjacent greenspace for residents. Page 12 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD 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 applicant proposes 60 multifamily residential units for Block 2, while Block 1 allows up to 12 residential units which may be single‐family, two‐family, or multifamily. The applicant has indicated the 60 multifamily residential units will be a mix of efficiency, 1‐ bedroom, 2‐bedrooms, and 3‐bedroom units. Staff finds the proposal does promote a wider variety of housing types than permitted in the R‐2 Two‐Family Residential District. 4. To encourage the clustering of single‐family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open space; Single‐family dwellings are not proposed for Block 2. Single‐family dwellings are permitted in Block 1 but are not shown as clustered in the PUD Development Plan. 5. To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; As this is mostly a multifamily residential development, nothing indicates it would not function as a cohesive project. The PUD Development Plan indicates Block 2 will be Phase 1 of the development and Block 1 will be Phase 2. 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 proposed multifamily residential use is not harmonious to the surrounding residential neighborhood and no transitional use is provided between it and the existing single‐family and two‐family dwellings adjacent to the proposed development. However, a portion of the development is adjacent to commercial property fronting on Long Street (Route 250 Bypass) and does provide a transitional use between the commercial area and surrounding residential neighborhood. Block 2 of the development is generally at a lower elevation than Block 1 and the surrounding neighborhood. The PUD Development Plan shows the multifamily residential units within Block 2 in 6 structures that mimic the appearance of townhouses and have a 35‐ft height maximum, which matches the surrounding R‐2 district maximum height allowance. The PUD Development Plan states the northern buildings will have 2 stories above ground adjacent to existing homes on River Vista Avenue with an additional story visible from the central greenspace. Buildings adjacent to Landonia Circle will step down to 2 stories adjacent to existing homes. Buildings along Otter Street and adjacent to commercial property will have 3 stories above ground on the southern Page 13 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD side with 2 stories visible from the central greenspace. The Plan also states each townhouse style portion of the buildings will have separate doors, balconies, and façade treatments to reduce apparent scale. The developer is proposing S‐2 screening on the northern and eastern edges of the Block 2 to screen it from the existing homes on River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle, which would not be required for a multifamily development of this density in other zoning districts. Staff finds that while the proposed buildings have a larger footprint than the surrounding homes, the townhouse style layout with façade and roof differentiation, lower building heights and topography changes, and additional screening minimize the apparent size of the buildings and better align the proposed development with the patterns of existing development. 7. To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, streams and topography; No streams are located on the property and the proposed development will require the removal of large existing trees. The application does not specify preservation of existing features but notes the proposed landscaping plan will provide over 1/2 acre of tree canopy in 10 years. 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 (Attachment C) include massing diagrams that do not provide detailed information regarding architectural style but do indicate façade differentiation and the placement of windows, balconies, and pitched roofs. These architectural features would be compatible with 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; Coordinated pedestrian linkages among internal buildings and open space are provided and to scale with the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing street improvements to the River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle public rights‐of‐way in the vicinity of the development. Staff notes that the PUD Development Plan references at least one street that may be difficult to design and construct in accordance with current City standards. At the present time (and without the benefit of specific engineering details) it appears that it would be difficult for a street to be constructed in compliance with the development standard in City Code 29‐182(c) (maximum allowable street grade is 8 percent; however, the City Engineer can vary or grant exceptions to the requirement‐‐ not to exceed 10 percent‐‐after following the process in 29‐36). By city ordinance this determination will not be made until the time a site plan is submitted for review and Page 14 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD approval by the City. (The PUD Development plan only sets out a conceptual layout for proposed streets, see City Code 34‐517(a)(3)(d) and (e), not a design‐for‐construction plan). According to the City Attorney's Office, if City Council were to approve this PUD Development Plan and Proffer, the legal effect of that approval is that the landowner can pursue the necessary development approvals under the provisions of the current zoning/subdivision ordinances. (Va. Code 15.2‐2307) Council approval of a PUD and related proffers does not guarantee approval of any particular design plan, if‐‐when officially submitted‐‐they do not comply with the applicable zoning or subdivision ordinance standards. In these circumstances, the landowner/developer assumes the risk that, if construction plans cannot be prepared to provide for street improvements that meet applicable grades, then the burden will be on the landowner to either amend the PUD Plan/proffers, or identify some other solution. The applicant has applied for a sidewalk waiver request for River Vista Avenue in order to construct sidewalk on only the western side of the street. The sidewalk waiver request will be heard by City Council along with the rezoning application. However, staff is concerned that no improvements to the existing River Vista Avenue sidewalk network are proposed. The existing network on the southern side of River Vista Avenue, where the proposed development is located, includes multiple gaps where no sidewalk exists. Staff is also concerned that no pedestrian connection through Landonia Circle to Long Street (Route 250 Bypass) is provided. Staff believes the development as proposed does not provide adequate external connections to facilitate pedestrian access to and from the development. 10. To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single‐ vehicle‐alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. An existing CAT bus stop at St. Clair Avenue and Calhoun Avenue is approximately 850‐ft from the development. The sidewalk network from the development to the bus stop is mostly complete on St. Clair Avenue but does include gaps along River Vista Avenue, as noted above. The proposed multi‐use trail in the Otter Street right‐of‐way provides a pedestrian connection from Block 2 to the sidewalk network on St. Clair Avenue although no sidewalks are proposed in the previously built portion of the Otter Street right‐of‐way. The PUD Development Plan shows sheltered bike parking adjacent to the central greenspace but does not provide details on design or quantity of spaces. Staff finds that while connections to public transit services and pedestrian systems are provided for portions of the development, the lack of improvements on River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle creates insufficient access to both the nearby CAT bus stop and the public pedestrian network. Page 15 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Proffers The proffered development conditions are summarized below. Please see Attachment B to review the proposed proffers in their entirety. Affordable Housing: The Owner shall provide affordable housing within the Property. 3 dwelling units shall be For‐Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate‐income households having income less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent (FMR). 4 dwelling units shall be For‐Rent Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate‐income households having income less than 65% of the Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed the Fair Market Rent (FMR). The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least 10 years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official. Notwithstanding the household income limits identified, if, after a period of 90 days of marketing an available Required Affordable Dwelling Unit no lease agreement is executed with a tenant or tenants having a household income equal to or less than those limits identified, then no household income limit restrictions for prospective tenants for the available unit shall apply throughout the duration of the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant and any subsequent consecutive renewal periods thereof. Staff Analysis (Office of Community Solutions): This application includes the Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Worksheet (Attachment E), which currently identifies that zero (0) ADUs are required pursuant to the gross floor area proposed in excess of 1.0 FAR (per Section 34‐12. ‐ Affordable dwelling units.). The table below provides information relative to the 2022 HUD guidelines for Income Limits, as well as additional information regarding realistic housing/income data. The HUD Income Limits will be based on the HUD guidelines for that year that the Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable unit(s) is issued. Income Limits / AMI Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2022 Median Family 111,200 Income Extremely Low Income 22,020 25,170 28,320 31,440 33,960 36,480 39,000 41,520 (30%) Page 16 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Very Low Income (50%) 36,700 41,950 47,200 52,400 56,600 60,800 65,000 69,200 Low Income (80%) 58,720 67,120 75,520 83,840 90,560 97,280 104,000 110,720 65% 50,596 57,824 65,052 72,280 78,062 83,845 89,627 95,410 @ 80% AMI: Approx. 1,468 1,678 1,888 2,096 2,264 2,432 2,600 2,768 monthly income available for housing @30% (no Utility Allowance) @ 80% AMI: Approx. 1,223 1,398 1,573 1,747 1,887 2,027 2,167 2,307 monthly income available for housing @25% (with 5% Utility Allowance) @ 65% AMI: Approx. 1,265 1,446 1,626 1,807 1,952 2,096 2,241 2,385 monthly income available for housing @30% (no Utility Allowance) @ 65% AMI: Approx. 1,054 1,205 1,355 1,506 1,626 1,747 1,867 2,027 monthly income available for housing @25% (with 5% Utility Allowance) The table below shows the 2022 HUD guidelines for Fair Market Rent (FMR). The FMR will be based on the HUD guidelines for the year in which the Certificate of Occupancy for the affordable unit(s) is issued. Eff 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2022 HUD FMR 1,024 1,063 1,264 1,562 1,959 4 units @ FMR 1,024 1,063 1,264 1,562 1,959 3 units @ 125% FMR 1,280 1,329 1,580 1,953 2,449 Monthly cost includes tenant‐paid utilities In this particular application, the proposed development does not exceed 1.0 floor‐area ratio (FAR), therefore the applicant is not required to provide on‐site affordable dwelling units as part of the project (pursuant to Section 34‐12). However, the applicant is offering: o Three (3) dwelling units shall be For‐Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate‐income households having income less than 80% of the Page 17 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent (FMR). o Four (4) dwelling units shall be For‐Rent Affordable Dwelling Units reserved for rental to low and moderate‐income households having income less than 65% of the Area Median Income (AMI), where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities does not exceed the Fair Market Rent (FMR). Pursuant to the information provided in the above tables, staff is concerned that the proffered FMRs and Income Levels are not realistic as to providing affordable rental units in the City of Charlottesville. Examples: 1) Maximum Gross Rent: 125% FMR Income Limit: 80% AMI Proposed Rents Unit Size Eff 1 2 3 125% FMR $1,280 $1,329 $1,580 $1,953 Income Limit 2022 (80% AMI) Household Size 1 2 3 4 80% AMI $58,720 $67,120 $75,520 $83,840 30% of 80% $1,468 $1,678 $1,888 $2,096 (no Utility Allowance) 25% of 80% (with 5% $1,223 $1,398 $1,573 $1,747 Utility Allowance) (Income available to spend on rent + utilities) Proposed Rent may be affordable at this income level depending on unit size. For instance, a married couple could afford to rent a one‐bedroom unit but a single‐parent with one child would not be able to afford a two‐bedroom unit. 2) Maximum Gross Rent: FMR Income Limit: 65% AMI Page 18 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD Proposed Rents Unit Size Eff 1 2 3 FMR $1,024 $1,063 $1,264 $1,562 Income Limit 2022 (65% AMI) Household Size 1 2 3 4 65% AMI $50,596 $57,824 $65,052 $72,280 30% of 65% $1,265 $1,446 $1,626 $1,807 (no Utility Allowance) 25% of 65% (with 5% $1,054 $1,205 $1,355 $1,506 Utility Allowance) (Income available to spend on rent + utilities) Proposed Rent may be affordable at this income level depending on unit size. For instance, a married couple could afford to rent a one‐bedroom unit but a single‐parent with one child would not be able to afford a two‐bedroom unit. Staff would like to see assurances that an allowance for any tenant‐supplied utilities (i.e., those utilities/services not provided by the landlord) will be subtracted from the proposed rents. Staff would like to see a longer Rental Affordability Period. Staff would like to see assurances that vouchers will be accepted. An acceptable marketing plan on how to market the designated affordable units should be provided to the City’s Office of Community Solutions prior to the certificate of occupancy of the proffered units. The marketing plan should provide detailed information on how the developer/owner will market the property, including non‐ discrimination of prospective tenants on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, or source of income. When completed and occupied, the owner shall provide an annual report on affordability compliance for the affordable unit(s) on a template provided by the City’s Office of Community Solutions. If an affordable unit is not leased in 90 days to an eligible tenant, then no household income limit restrictions for prospective tenants for the available unit shall apply throughout the duration of the lease agreement. We have the following concerns: Page 19 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD o There are no assurances or presumptions on the extent and seriousness of marketing these affordable units. o There should be no timeframe to find a qualified tenant and enter into a lease agreement. If a unit is proffered to be affordable, it should remain affordable for the entire affordability period. o The marketing plan should clearly identify how the owner has a current waitlist of qualified tenants and/or will be working with partner entities to identify a pool of qualified tenants well before completion of construction The applicant noted reservation of right to make changes to the affordable units. The City would consider the changes if they are reasonable and would not result in the segregation of units or reduction in the size of the unit(s). Based on the above comments, the Office of Community Solutions finds the proffer is not consistent with either the Charlottesville Affordable Housing Plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. We recommend that you reject the proffer in that it does not guarantee affordable units, and/or does not provide for affordable units for a significant length of time. Construction Entrance: Construction entrances for site development and construction on the Property shall not be permitted to connect to River Vista Avenue. Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer does not believe prohibiting construction traffic on River Vista Avenue will cause a negative impact on the community. Some construction activity on River Vista Avenue will be required to construct the entrance into the development. Staff agrees this proffer may limit impacts to the surrounding neighborhood during construction. Screening Fence: A screening fence shall be installed in the locations shown on the PUD Development Plan (adjacent to properties to the north of the development) and may be comprised of generally opaque materials approved by the Director of Neighborhood Development Services. The screening fence shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height, unless a lesser height is agreed upon by the Owners and the owners of adjacent property where the screening fence is installed along the common boundary line. If, at the time of construction of the screening fence, an adjacent owner has erected a fence along the common boundary line, the screening fence requirement may be waived in the location where the adjacent owner’s fence is constructed. The screening fence must be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within Block 2. Staff Analysis: Staff agrees a screening fence will provide additional buffering between the proposed development and surrounding neighborhood. Staff is concerned the provision to Page 20 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD allow waiver when an adjacent owner has constructed a fence will not be sufficient to ensure adequate buffering. Staff is also concerned that the fence may not be constructed until the first certificate of occupancy, as installing the screening fence earlier in the construction process will provide buffering from construction activities on‐site. 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 March 9, 2022, the applicant held a community meeting via the Zoom online meeting platform. The applicant gave an overview of the project as it related to the need for a rezoning. Many members of the public attended the meeting and voiced the following concerns: o Quantity of multifamily residential units proposed. o Increase in vehicular traffic and distribution of vehicular traffic. o Availability of parking within the development and potential parking spill‐over onto neighborhood streets. o Lack of connection through Block 1 to Block 2. o Architectural quality of the built development. o Location of proposed balconies in relation to existing homes in the neighborhood. o Stormwater management facilities and potential impacts to the Rivanna River. The following items were supported by some speakers at the meeting: o Central greenspace. o Multifamily residential units are proposed in a series of smaller buildings. Other Comments As of the date of this report (September 6, 2022), staff has received the following comments through email, phone calls or in person conversations (any email staff received was forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council and is in Attachment F): o Support of additional residential units in the neighborhood. o Support of the scale and density of proposed residential units. o Support of inclusion of affordable dwelling units. o Support of the potential daycare facility. o Concern over the number of proposed residential units. o Concern with increases to vehicular traffic in the neighborhood from proposed residential units and daycare facility. o Concern over the number of affordable housing units proposed. o Concern with the potential stormwater management facilities and impacts to the Rivanna River. Page 21 of 22 ZM22‐00002 Mount View PUD o Concern with the proximity of proposed residential units to existing homes. o Concern with the narrow width of River Vista Avenue and its ability to accommodate additional traffic safely. o Concern with the lack of vehicular connection from Block 1 to Block 2. o Concern with adequate parking in the development. o Concern with lack of proposed improvements to nearby City streets. o Concern with impacts to local wildlife with development of the site. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the proposed development, as presented in the application materials, could contribute to some goals within the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provide additional housing options in a development that seeks to minimize impacts on the built form of the neighborhood through a series of smaller buildings. However, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial as the proposed uses do not align with the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan, the affordable dwelling unit proffer does not meet the Comprehensive Plan or the City’s Affordable Housing Plan, and the proposal does not provide sufficient connections to the larger public pedestrian network and nearby CAT bus stop. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend that City Council should approve ZM22‐0002, on the basis that 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 ZM22‐00002 on the basis that approval of the proposed PUD Development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will not serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. Attachments A. Rezoning Application Processed March 8, 2022 B. Proffer Statement Provided June 8, 2022 C. PUD Development Plan and Supplemental Information Provided June 8, 2022 D. Traffic Impact Study Dated February 3, 2022 E. Affordable Dwelling Unit Worksheet Provided February 9, 2022 F. Emails received prior to September 6, 2022 Page 22 of 22 MOUNT VIEW BAPTIST CHURCH TRUSTEES: John R. Leavell Robert R. Henry, Jr. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA IN RE: PETITION FOR REZONING (City Application No. ZM22-0000X) STATEMENT OF DRAFT PROFFER CONDITIONS For MOUNT VIEW PUD City of Charlottesville Tax Map 49 Parcels 65, 721, 72, and 73 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Mount View Properties, LLC is the owner of Tax Parcel 490073000. Route 250 Houses LLC is the owner of Tax Parcels 490072000 and 490072100. Mount View Baptist Church is the owner of Tax Parcel 490065000. Mount View Properties LLC, Route 250 Houses LLC, and Mount View Baptist Church (collectively, the “Owners”) seek to rezone their aforementioned respective properties (collectively, the “Property”) which are the subject parcels of rezoning application ZM22-0000X, a project known as Mount View PUD (the “Project”). The Owners seek to amend the current zoning of the Property subject to certain voluntary conditions set forth below. Each signatory below signing on behalf of the Owners covenants and warrants that it is an authorized signatory of the Owners for this Proffer Statement. In furtherance of the Project, the Owners hereby proffer for City Council’s consideration voluntary development conditions, which the Owners agree are reasonable. The Owners agree that, if the Property is rezoned as requested, the use and development of the Property will be subject to and in accordance with the following conditions: 1. Affordable Housing: The Owner shall provide affordable housing within the Property, as follows: a. For the purposes of this Proffer, the term “For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i. For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate- income households having income less than 65 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. b. For the purposes of this Proffer, the term “For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Unit” means a dwelling unit where the monthly cost of rent, including any tenant paid utilities, does not exceed 125% of the Fair Market Rent by unit bedrooms for the Charlottesville MSA, the aforementioned Fair Market Rent is established annually by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). i. For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved for rental to low and moderate-income households having income less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Area Median Income means the median income for Households within the Charlottesville, Virginia HUD Metropolitan FMR Area, as published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. c. The Owners shall cause four (4) dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property to be For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units and an additional three (3) dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property to be For-Rent Workforce Affordable Dwelling Units (collectively, the “Required Affordable Dwelling Units”) for a total of seven (7) dwelling units constructed within the area of the Property to be Required Affordable Dwelling Units. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be identified on a layout plan, by unit, prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within the Property (“Initial Designation”). The Owner reserves the right, from time to time after the Initial Designation, and subject to approval by the City, to change the unit(s) reserved as For-Rent Workforce- Affordable Dwelling Units and For-Rent Affordable Dwelling Units, and the City’s approval shall not unreasonably be withheld so long as a proposed change does not reduce the number of Required Affordable Dwelling Units and does not result in an Affordability Period shorter than required by these proffers with respect to any of the Required Affordable Dwelling Units. i. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be reserved as such throughout a period of at least ten (10) years from the date on which the unit receives a certificate of occupancy from the City’s building official (“Rental Affordability Period”). All Rental Affordable Dwelling Units shall be administered in accordance with one or more written declarations of covenants within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney. ii. On or before January 1 of each calendar year the then current owner of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit shall submit an Annual Report to the City, identifying each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit by address and location, and verifying the Household Income of the occupant(s) of each Required Affordable Dwelling Unit. iii. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be constructed prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy of the fifty-fifth dwelling unit within the area of the Property. d. Notwithstanding the household income limits identified in 1.a.i. and 1.b.i., if, after a period of 90 days of marketing an available Required Affordable Dwelling Unit no lease agreement is executed with a tenant or tenants having a household income equal to or less than those limits identified in 1.a.i and 1.b.i, then no household income limit restrictions for prospective tenants for the available unit shall apply throughout the duration of the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant and any subsequent consecutive renewal periods thereof. e. The land use obligations referenced in 1.c.i and 1.c.ii shall be set forth within one or more written declarations of covenants recorded within the land records of the Charlottesville Circuit Court, in a form approved by the Office of the City Attorney, so that the Owner’s successors in right, title and interest to the Property shall have notice of and be bound by the obligations. The Required Affordable Dwelling Units shall be provided as for-rent units throughout the Rental Affordability Period. 2. Construction Entrance: Construction entrances for site development and construction on the Property shall not be permitted to connect to River Vista Avenue. 3. Screening Fence: A screening fence shall be installed in the locations shown on Sheet 7 of the Development Plan prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C. dated February 8, 2022 last revised May xx, 2022 (the “Development Plan”). a. The screening fence may be comprised of masonry, composite, painted or stained lumber, or an alternate material approved by the Director of Neighborhood Development Services (“NDS”) or its designee. Chain link and screening mesh are expressly prohibited as screening fence materials. b. The screening fence shall be a minimum of six feet in height, unless a lesser height is agreed upon by the Owners and the owners of adjacent property where the screening fence is installed along the common boundary line. If a lesser height is agreed upon, record of this agreement must be presented in writing to the Director of NDS or its designee. c. If, at the time of construction of the screening fence, an adjacent owner has erected a fence along the common boundary line, the screening fence requirement may be waived in the location where the adjacent owner’s fence is constructed. d. The screening fence must be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a residential unit within Block 2; the limits of Block 2 are shown on Sheet 4 of the Development Plan. WHEREFORE, the undersigned Owner stipulates and agrees that the use and development of the Property shall be in conformity with the conditions hereinabove stated, and request that the Property be rezoned as requested, in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charlottesville. By: ________________________________________ Mount View Properties LLC Print Name: _________________________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________________ By: ________________________________________ Route 250 Houses LLC Print Name: _________________________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________________ By: ________________________________________ Mount View Baptist Church Print Name: _________________________________ Owner’s Address: _____________________________ PROJECT PROPOSAL from River Vista. Having multiple points of access will contribute to distributing trips from the PROJECT NARRATIVE Mount View Properties LLC, Route 250 Houses LLC, and Mount View Baptist Church site to various streets that are largely integrated into an existing grid network rather than having (collectively, the “owners”) own 3.4 acres of land in Charlottesville’s Locust Grove Neighborhood. all traffic from the site concentrated through one point of access. The Landonia Circle entrance will provide convenient access to Route 250 West and easy access downtown as well as access MOUNT VIEW The land is comprised of tax parcels 49-65, 49-721, 49-72, and 49-73 (collectively, the “property”). PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT On behalf of the owners, we request to rezone the property from R-2 Residential to Planned to 250 East from the Locust Avenue ramp, without having to cross over the Route 250 median; Sheet 1 of 4 Unit Development (PUD) to realize a residential development and to allow for complementary the River Vista entrance will provide a another route to Downtown. This project proposes to non-residential uses to take shape on the property at some point in the future. The PUD improve the inadequate portion of Landonia Circle serving this development which will open development plan proposes two blocks; Block 1 is approximately 1.4 acres and is the site of access to Route 250 from Landonia for nearby residents, offering another way to Route 250 for Mount View Baptist Church and Block 2 is approximately 2.0 acres and is currently comprised residents along Coleman or Landonia and other residential streets, rather than driving River of an open field at the rear of Mount View Baptist Church, two single family dwellings, and a Vista to access Route 250. This project also proposes to construct a multi-use path within the vacant parcel. Mount View Baptist Church plans to remain in operation if this PUD is approved portion of the Otter Street right-of-way that is adjacent to this site creating an additional point however, approval of this PUD will give the church the opportunity to diversify the use of their of access for pedestrians and cyclists. property. The PUD development plan permits certain non-residential uses in Block 1 such as a preschool and an artist’s studio, with the preschool being the most desirable potential use for Within Block 1, up to 6,000 sf of daycare facility use may take shape with the church. While the church that they would like to establish in the future. If the church were to pursue these daycare facilities are typically associated with increased trip generation occurring the morning uses in Block 1, they would most likely utilize a portion of their basement level to serve such and evening peak hour, the daycare facility within Mount View presents a unique opportunity uses however, Block 1 has sufficient area to accommodate an additional structure in front of the in providing child care services within an established neighborhood that is walkable for many existing parking lot and adjacent to the existing church building. residents. While Mount View proposes to develop up to 72 units, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-family detached housing, a housing type that typically has The development plan also permits residential density in Block 1, the church has expressed a higher averages of children affiliated with it. A daycare facility would be a great service for the desire to be able to build a few units at some point in the future that could serve parishioners community that should be located in and accessible to residential neighborhoods. in need of housing, provide potential church employee housing, or provide the church with an opportunity to have an additional revenue stream by operating a rental property. Although the JUSTIFICATION OF PUD (SEC. 34-43(a)(3) CITY CODE) church has no immediate plans to construct housing in Block 1, approval of this PUD would maintain the opportunity to realize housing in Block 1 at some point. One of the three major initiatives adopted in Charlottesville’s Affordable Housing Plan is to “adopt progressive and inclusionary zoning reforms” (Charlottesville Affordable Housing Block 2 envisions a unique residential development that is anchored by a central greenspace. A Plan adopted March 2021, 9). Charlottesville’s comprehensive zoning rewrite is currently in maximum of 60 units are proposed within five structures that are integrated into the landscape. the works however that comprehensive rewrite will take time and in the interim before that The buildings utilize the slope of the site to minimize the scale and form of the structures; rewrite is adopted, the strong demand for housing in Charlottesville remains. Changing the many of the structures, which are proposed to have three floors, will be comprised of two zoning on this property from R-2 to PUD will contribute to growing and diversifying the City’s stories and a basement level. This building form is sensitive to the existing context, building housing stock; the R-2 district is one of the City’s lowest density and most restrictive zoning height is minimized in areas that are in closest proximity to one-story residential structures. districts. Developing this property, which has convenient access to major transportation The buildings in the northern portion of the site will appear as two-story structures from corridor Route 250, is well connected within an established gridded network of streets, is a the existing residences just north of the property that front on River Vista Avenue and will large contiguous parcel, and is directly behind a commercial center, as an R-2 development is appear as three story units from the central greenspace, interior to the site. The units that are a missed opportunity for integrating alternative housing types into areas of the City where it proposed to front along Landonia Circle are the only units currently proposed as slab on grade historically hasn’t been realized. There is a strong need for housing in the Charlottesville that construction on the site however, the structure will step down to two stories along its sides to is well-documented in various City documents such as the adopted 2021 Comprehensive Plan, soften the scale of the structure in comparison to the existing residential units along Landonia 2021 Affordable Housing Plan, and the 2018 Housing Needs Assessment prepared by FBCI and Circle. The units along the southern portion of the property front along what is currently an PES which states that “housing demand significantly exceeds the available supply.” There is a unimproved portion of Otter Street; these units are directly behind Bank of America and are need for this zoning change and it is justified. proposed to be two stories above grade facing the interior of the site and appear as three stories from the Otter St. right-of-way. These structures are not adjacent to or directly across from any SATISFACTION OF PUD OBJECTIVES (SEC. 34-490 CITY CODE) existing residential structures. The following is an analysis of how this project will satisfy PUD objectives in Sec. 34-490 of the TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 The residential units will be a mixture of efficiency, one, two, and three bedroom units. From City of Charlottesville’s Zoning Ordinance: the exterior, the units will appear as a series of linked townhomes with separate doors, porches, Revised 8 June 2022 and facade treatments. This variation in facade finishes and details will contribute to the (1) To encourage developments of equal or higher quality than otherwise required by the strict Revised 20 May 2022 human-scale feel of this development. application of zoning district regulations that would otherwise govern; Submitted 08 February 2022 The development will have two points of vehicular access, one from Landonia Circle and one project: 21.047 The Mount View PUD establishes an effective design program that takes advantage of the land commercial and residential development, a residential development of greater intensity than PROJECT NARRATIVE opportunities that are available on a relatively large contiguous tract; the shared green spaces, much of the surrounding residential context is appropriate for this site as the development the proposed multi-use path, and this approach to residential density would not be realized in the underlying R-2 zoning district. proposed is in accordance with the existing transect of development where the most intense development is along Route 250 and less intense development takes shape just north of the MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT property. The development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character surrounding Sheet 2 of 4 (2)To encourage innovative arrangements of buildings and open spaces to provide efficient, the property. attractive, flexible and environmentally sensitive design. (7)To ensure preservation of cultural features, scenic assets and natural features such as trees, The Mount View PUD proposes residential buildings flanked along the edges of the property, a streams and topography; central greenspace that ties together the development, and purposeful placement of screening There are no streams or critical slopes on the property and so there is no proposed disturbance buffers. The buildings internal to the site are largely connected with sidewalks and the PUD is to those environmentally sensitive features with this development plan. There are several mature connected to the greater neighborhood context by the two new proposed entrances to the site trees on the property, mostly concentrated along the eastern portion of what is proposed as and the proposed construction of the multi-use path within the Otter St. right-of-way. There Block 2, that are slated to be removed with this development however, the landscape plan are no identified environmentally sensitive features on the property. provided with this application proposes a robust landscape plan that will result in 10-year tree canopy in excess of half an acre. (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; Mount View Baptist Church is rightfully named, as there are Mountain Views of the Southwest Mountains from the site. The church is at a high point on the property and the site slopes The Mount View PUD will establish a range of unit sizes including efficiency; one, two, and downhill from St. Clair Avenue and the church building location. Since much of the site is at a three bedroom units. lower elevation than the adjacent properties to the north and west and the height limitation is set to be consistent with R-2 district, impacts to scenic resources are expected to be minimal. (4)To encourage the clustering of single-family dwellings for more efficient use of land and preservation of open 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; and Although there are no single-family dwellings proposed within this PUD, this proposal does promote efficient use of land on a relatively large site in the City that is well connected to The massing diagrams presented with this PUD application demonstrate coordinated nearby transportation networks and destinations. The proposed open space within the PUD architectural styles internally as well as with adjacent properties along the perimeter of the will meet the 15% requirement. development. (5)To provide for developments designed to function as cohesive, unified projects; (9)To provide for coordinated linkages among internal buildings and uses, and external connections, at a scale appropriate to the development and adjacent neighborhoods; The Mount View PUD will function as a cohesive, unified project. Sidewalks connect residential units, parking areas, and green spaces in Block 2 to one another. A sidewalk proposed along Coordinated pedestrian linkages are provided throughout the development to connect internal the shared boundary between Blocks 1 and 2 will connect the blocks with another. The central buildings. A sidewalk is provided adjacent to the new entrance proposed off of River Vista and green space is not only accessible to future residents of Block 2 but it is sited in a location where a new multi-use path is proposed within the Otter St. ROW to connect the development to it is also accessible from Block 1, and is fairly centrally located within the PUD as a whole. areas further west. Block 2 is slated to continue operating as a church for the foreseeable future however, this PUD allows for the opportunity for complementary limited commercial uses to take shape within (10)To facilitate access to the development by public transit services or other single-vehicle- that block as well. The limited allowable commercial uses, such as a preschool or an artist’s alternative services, including, without limitation, public pedestrian systems. studio are complementary to the residential development proposed within Block 2 and the surrounding residential context, as the uses allowable would directly serve many residents in The sidewalk proposed adjacent to the new entrance that will connect to River Vista will the area. connect to the south side of River Vista Ave. The sidewalk network on the south side of River Vista Ave is disjointed in some areas although the sidewalk along the northern side of River (6)To ensure that a development will be harmonious with the existing uses and character of Vista is more well connected. There is a CAT bus stop at the intersection of Calhoun St. and adjacent property, and/or consistent with patterns of development noted with respect to such St. Clair Ave that is approximately 850’ walking distance from the property; with the exception TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 adjacent property; of crossing Belleview Avenue when leaving the property and one lot along Belleview Ave, the sidewalk network is complete from the property’s proposed River Vista entrance to the CAT Revised 8 June 2022 The property is uniquely sited to function as a transitional site between Route 250 and the bus stop. Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 commercial uses that front along that heavily-traveled corridor just south of the property and the less intense residential areas just north of the property. As a property positioned between CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN project: 21.047 the site utilize the grade to provide for two above grade stories over a basement, minimizing PROJECT NARRATIVE It is noted in the recently adopted 2021 Charlottesville Comprehensive Plan that “one of the the scale of the proposed buildings in relation to the surrounding context. The structures will primary goals of [the] Comprehensive Plan update is to support the opportunity to provide appear as a series of townhomes, although the interior of the buildings will be divided into various unit types. MOUNT VIEW more housing in all neighborhoods in the city [...].” The Locust Grove Neighborhood is PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT primarily developed with single family detached and some duplex/attached residences. Several Sheet 3 of 4 main thoroughfares, such as River Road, Route 250, and Park Street define boundaries of this ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND neighborhood and in recent years, housing types other than single family detached have begun to take shape along these corridors. New apartments along River Road are nearing completion INFRASTRUCTURE and the recently approved MACAA and Park St. Christian Church rezonings will see the American Community Survey (ACS) 5 year estimates indicate the average household size construction of multi-family and single family attached dwellings at deeply affordable rates. The in Charlottesville is 2.38 people. Using the ACS average, a multi-family development with a Comprehensive Plan supports the opportunity to provide more housing in all neighborhoods maximum of 72 proposed units could potentially yield 171 new residents within Police District in the city and this project will help to realize that goal. 3 and the Bypass Fire. It should be noted this household size is for all unit sizes and is not limited to multi-family households. The number of people per dwelling unit in this development This project is consistent with various goals and objectives put forth in the Comprehensive especially in efficiency, one, and two bedrooms units may be less than the overall household Plan: average. Goal 3. Balance Conservation and Preservation with Change The traffic study included with this PUD submission provides an analysis of projected impacts Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while to roadways. promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community. Impacts on Schools: This property lies within the Burnley-Moran Elementary School district. After attending This project plans for effective density in building forms that are context aware of the historic neighborhood elementary schools, all Charlottesville students attend Walker Upper Elementary building patterns surrounding the property. This PUD will establish infill development on School, Buford Middle School, and Charlottesville High School. relatively large contiguous parcel in the City. The regulations of the PUD allow for a mix of uses and allows for the existing church building to be adapted in a way to serve multiple users. ACS 2018 5 year estimates show that there are an estimated 4,800 residents between the ages of 5-17 within City limits. By dividing this estimate by the number of occupied housing units in the city, 18,613, it can be approximated that there are approximately .26 children per housing Goal 6. Design Excellence unit in Charlottesville. Since a maximum of 72 units are proposed on the site, it is estimated Continue Charlottesville’s history of architectural and design excellence by maintaining traditional there may be an additional 19 school-aged children within the development. urban design features and valuing historic resources while encouraging creative, context-sensitive, contemporary planning and design that supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Impacts on Environmental Features: All design and engineering for improving the property will comply with applicable City and The massing renderings presented with this PUD application demonstrate a creative, context- State regulations for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management. sensitive design in a location that is well-connected, transit accessible, and in close proximity to jobs, schools, and neighborhood amenities. Objectives for Residential Areas ANALYSIS OF FURTHERANCE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE & Foster walkable, bikeable, and transit accessible neighborhoods. GENERAL WELFARE (SEC. 34-43(a)(2) CITY CODE) The property is within a 15-20 minute walk to downtown and within a 5 minute walk of River Road. There’s a CAT bus stop several hundred feet away from the property. Sec. 34-3 lists the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance below are descriptions of how this development proposal will further the purposes of Chapter 34 and the general welfare of the Increase opportunities to develop diverse housing options near schools, parks, shopping districts, entire community: and employment centers. (1)To provide for adequate light, air, and convenience of access, and to protect against obstruction This project would increase diverse housing options in this portion of the Locust Grove of light and air; neighborhood. The property is directly behind a commercial strip and is within a 10 minute TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 walk of Burnley-Moran elementary school. This development proposal is well integrated into a City block network and will have convenience of access without having significant transportation impacts on the nearby corridors. Adequate Revised 8 June 2022 The property is designated as General Residential on the land use map. This category sets forth light and air will not be compromised with this development proposal. Revised 20 May 2022 form guidelines that buildings should be up to 2.5 stories and recommendations for new infill Submitted 08 February 2022 housing and for consideration of townhomes on a site-specific basis. Most of the buildings on (2)To regulate and restrict the location of trades, industries and residences; project: 21.047 the tax base; PROJECT NARRATIVE This PUD proposal is predominantly residential however, some limited commercial uses are proposed; the commercial uses, such as a daycare facility or a small retail space are proposed at neighborhood-scale and will provide services to directly serve the surrounding neighborhood. The Mount View PUD proposes neighborhood-scale commercial activity that could provide desirable employment. This new housing opportunity in the City will allow for new residents MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT to live in the City closer to existing employment centers. Sheet 4 of 4 (3)To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets, to facilitate transportation and to provide for safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian travel; (10)To provide a balance of housing opportunities suitable for meeting the current and future needs of residents of the city; This development proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on public streets. The Mount View PUD proposes several roadway improvements to increase connectivity in the The Mount View PUD proposes a housing opportunity that will contribute to meeting residents’ neighborhood; the travelway through the development will connect River Vista to Landonia housing needs. Circle, the innovative design proposal in Landonia Circle will establish an unimpeded connection along that roadway, and the multi-use path proposed within Otter Street will create (11)To protect and maintain the environmental quality in the city. a new connection for pedestrians and cyclists. All development affiliated with the Mount View PUD will comply with applicable local and (4)To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community, to protect state environmental protections related to erosion and sediment control and stormwater against overcrowding of land and undue density of population in relation to the community management. facilities existing or available, and to protect the natural beauty and special features of the city; The Mount View PUD proposes a creative housing development that will contribute to varying PROFFERS the housing stock in the Locust Grove neighborhood. The owners have proffered seven affordable units, committed to restricting construction traffic from River Vista, and have committed to providing a screening fence. (5)To provide for safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers, and to facilitate the provision of adequate public safety services, disaster evacuation, civil defense, and flood protection; This property does not lie within a floodplain. All building construction will comply with the then-current building code. (6)To facilitate the provision of water, sewerage, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; The Mount View PUD is anchored by a central greenspace and will meet PUD requirements for open space. The City currently has adequate water and sewer capacity to serve this project. (7)To protect and enhance the character and stability of neighborhoods; The Mount View PUD will contribute to the character of the Locust Grove neighborhood by diversifying the housing stock, which is primarily two-family and single family detached; the neighborhood character will be enhanced by welcoming neighbors into the area who may desire an alternate unit type or who may not be able to afford to live in the larger units that currently surround the property. The Mount View PUD will also contribute to the stability of this neighborhood by offering smaller units than what is currently available that may be desirable to those individuals looking to age in place in their neighborhood while reducing their maintenance responsibilities. TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 (8)To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; Revised 8 June 2022 The Mount View PUD will not contribute to the destruction of historic areas. Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 (9)To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge project: 21.047 Parcel Owner Address Zone Parcel Owner Address Zone CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING 48-95.1 ALISON, JANE, TRUSTEE JANE 964 LOCUST AVE R-1S 49-53 BROWN, EDWIN H, JR & TAVIA K F 1205 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALISON REVOCABLE LIVING TR 48-104 WINNER, ANTHONY, TRUSTEE 950 LOCUST AVE R-1S 48-111 49-39 MARTIN, LAWRENCE J, ETAL 911 MARTIN ST FRASER, DYLAN R BOSLEY, JAYME 1225 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S R-1S MOUNT VIEW 48-98 NAGRAJ, VIJAY PETER 1100 CALHOUN ST R-1S C PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 48-103 SHEPPE, SUZANNE S, TRUSTEE 929 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-53.1 DOUGLAS, GREGORY & VIRGINIA 1207 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 500’ RADIUS 48-98.1 WHITED, SHANN 1102 CALHOUN ST B R-1S MARIE C 49-40 DOWDY, CARRIE C 1227 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S ADJ. PARCEL INVENTORY 48-99 RAMAZANI, DAVID K 1104 CALHOUN ST R-1S 48-108.1 KANE, CATHERINE F 913 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S Sheet 1 of 13 48-102.1 WHITED, SHANN 0 CALHOUN ST R-1S 48-107 FARIELLO, JENNIFER L CONKLIN, 940 LOCUST AVE R-1S 49-53.2 JOLLY, W F & BARBARA N 1209 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 CHRISTIAN J 48-112 ROBERTS, GREGORY W & MARY E 907 MARTIN ST R-1S 48-100 GIBBS, JENNIFER LOUISE 1106 CALHOUN ST R-1S 49-64 RONAYNE, THOMAS J, III & 922 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 48-102 FOSTER, ROBERT D, JR 931 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S ELIZABETH HAMPTON 49-28 DFWM, LLC 1004 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-53.3 TENNYSON, LINDSEY M 1211 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 48-108 ALLER, JAMES DAVID & SUZANNE 932 LOCUST AVE R-1S 49-53.4 MYERS, THOMAS R & DIANE E 1213 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 R 48-119 RUSSO, EDWARD A 909 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 48-101 PITRE, DWAYNE 933 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 48-117.1 EICHER, CORY L & SHERRY P 908 MARTIN ST R-1S 49-30 BURBAGE, AMANDA CURRERI, 1203 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 48-115 ROBERTS, GREGORY W & MARY E 0 MARTIN ST R-1S MATTHEW 49-65 MOUNT VIEW BAPTIST CHURCH 908 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 49-31 SWINSON, LINDA JEAN 1205 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 49-63.9 BERTHOUD, HEIDI 1206 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-29 CONNORS, BRADLEY D & KARA L 1201 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 48-117 SIMON, ROBERT T 906 MARTIN ST R-1S B 49-63 HICKS, ALVIN S 1210 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 48-104.3 HICKS, ALVIN S 927 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 48-120 HAND, JASON W & ELIZABETH S 907 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-32 KLOOSTERMAN, ANDREW S & 1207 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S ROSEN, PAMELA 48-116 MAXEY, BETTY JO 904 MARTIN ST R-1S 48-109 DAVIS, JAMES H & MARGARET A 930 LOCUST AVE R-1S 49-63.8 WALTON, STUART K 1212 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-33 DOWDY, DENNIS R 1209 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 48-121 MCDERMOTT, GAIL E HANCHAK, 905 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S LAINA N 48-104.2 SOLOMOND, JOHN PAUL, TRUST 925 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 48-124 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 0 MARTIN ST R-1S 49-33.1 MEHLICH, NANCY E 1211 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 48-122 SISSON, TERRE G 901 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-34 ROSENTHAL, FAYE S & JERRY S, 1213 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S TRUSTEES 49-63.7 HARVEY, ALLAN LEE 1216 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 48-110 FARLEY, ROBERT C JR & PATRICIA 918 LOCUST AVE R-1S 49-63.6 MAXEY, HAZEL PATTERSON 1218 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 C 49-101 YOUNG, JOSEPH D D’URSO, LAURA 1300 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-51 SUGG, WILLIAM N 930 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 M 48-104.1 SNOW-AUST, LAURA K & AUST, 923 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 48-123 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 0 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S ELIJAH S 49-63.5 RYANN, MELINA 1220 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-35 HOWE, GRAHAM W & ELIZABETH 1215 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 49-63.4 LINDSAY, CHRISTINE M 1222 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 48-105 SCHRANK, ELIZABETH E 921 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-66 SMITH, CHARLES R & ANNA D 902 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 48-113 WARFIELD-BROWN, ROSALIND 912 LOCUST AVE R-1S 51-100.1 MCNAB, JENNA 1010 LONG ST R-1S 48-106 LAURIE, GORDON W & SUSAN M 919 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S 49-63.3 ROWLAND, DONNA & PATTI LONG 1224 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-37 NYIMA, JAMYANG 1217 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S 49-58 AGEE, JOHN B & ELAINE 912 COLEMAN ST R-2 48-118 ALLER, JAMES D & SUZANNE R 910 MARTIN ST R-1S 49-69 THACKER, RONNIE S & JUDY G 900 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 49-50 WARD PROPERTIES, LLC 1206 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-72 WRIGHT & NAPIER, LLC 1221 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-52 STURGILL, BEATTIE GRAHAM 1203 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 51-100 HAMLETT, LEROY R JR & T J 1012 LONG ST R-1S Revised 8 June 2022 49-38 RICHARDSON, JAMES 1219 BELLEVIEW AVE R-1S MICHIE TR Revised 20 May 2022 49-49 HUNT, MARTHA M 1210 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-69.A WARD, DAVID J & VIRGINIA V 1128 OTTER ST R-2 Submitted 08 February 2022 48-114 WARFIELD-BROWN, ROSALIND 0 LOCUST AVE R-1S project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Parcel Owner Address Zone Parcel Owner Address Zone CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING 49-63.2 FELDMAN, GARY A & DEBRA J 1226 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-94.1 TIGER FUEL COMPANY 1315 LONG ST B-2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TULER 49-69.1 LEE, HSIU CHU 1130 OTTER ST R-2 51-99.A 51-99 SAGA HOMES, LLC 1008 LONG ST USMANOV, ZAKARYA & OLIMZHON 1006 LONG ST R-1S R-1S MOUNT VIEW 49-72.1 WRIGHT & NAPIER, LLC 1133 OTTER ST R-2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 49-48 FISHER, LARA L 1212 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-63.1 BLAKE, LINDA D & DANIEL E 1228 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-53.5 DEMAIO, EDWARD K & FRANCES 1215 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 500’ RADIUS 51-101 STURGEON, KYLE A & SHIRLEY, 1014 LONG ST R-1S M LAUREN S ADJ. PARCEL INVENTORY 49-54 1217 RIVER VISTA AVE CVILLE, LLC 1217 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-69.2 SZAKOS, JOSEPH A & KRISTIN 1132 OTTER ST R-2 Sheet 2 of 13 49-47 WELCH, CAMERON R 1214 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 LAYNG 49-54.1 FOSTER, DWIGHT & IRENE 1219 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-73 LANDONIA, LLC 0 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-55.1 DUFFY, AIMEE E BOUDOURIS, 1221 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-59 KIRSCHNICK, DAVID M 926 COLEMAN ST R-2 KATHRYN L 49-71 SOVRAN BANK 1205 LONG ST B-1 49-45 MORRIS, DONNA M & LORI A 1220 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 51-94.1 BARNARD, CHRISTOPHER & 841 ST CLAIR AVE R-1S HANGER PAMELA 49-46 KORMAN, AMANDA F SIMALCHIK, 1218 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 51-102 FLEMING, JACOB L & LINDSAY J 1016 LONG ST R-1S BRIAN T 49-60 THOMAS, ROY S JR & NELLIE P 908 COLEMAN ST R-2 49-55 COMFORT, JASON E & CARRIE A 1223 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-74 CRITZER, JESSIE 1205 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-44 WAMPLER, ERIC M 1222 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-75 CRITZER, PAUL C 1207 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-55.2 HUCK, JENNIFER A & ADAM F 1225 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-62 TSERING, PASANG & NGAWANG 904 COLEMAN ST R-2 SLEZ DOLKAR 49-43 LUDWIG, DALE & CHRIS ANN 1226 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-76 DEANE, ELLIS R, JR & VIVIAN C 1209 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-56 BABER, JAMES A & NATALIE A 1227 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 51-103 JACKSON, TREATROUS & KEITH 1200 LONG ST R-2 49-42 LANG, PEARON, JR & JEAN, 1228 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 GROOMES, JR TRUSTEES 49-84 HENRY, THOMAS E, TRUSTEE 1200 LANDONIA CIR R-2 49-41 HICKS, RANDOLPH L 1230 BELLEVIEW AVE R-2 49-77 TAYLOR, WILLIAM E & MARGARET 902 COLEMAN ST R-2 49-57 LACE LEAF, LLC 1229 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 C 49-57.1 GORMAN, TIMOTHY P & SUSAN H 1231 RIVER VISTA AVE R-2 49-95 RIVERVIEW LAND AND 921 RIVER RD CC & FISHER, LARA L DEVELOPMENT, LLC 51-104 CARTER, NANCY D 1202 LONG ST R-2 49-84.A HENRY, THOMAS E, TRUSTEE 1202 LANDONIA CIR R-2 51-113 SIPE, MARGARET B 840 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 49-78 DIXON, MATTHEW J 900 COLEMAN ST R-2 51-105 CARTER, NANCY D 1206 LONG ST R-2 49-82 HENRY, THOMAS E, TRUSTEE 1204 LANDONIA CIR R-2 51-106 CARTER, NANCY D 1210 LONG ST R-2 49-79 LONG STREET LLC 909 LANDONIA CIR B-1 49-85 KIMCO, L C 1305 LONG ST B-2 51-114 BARNARD, PAMELA G 838 ST CLAIR AVE R-2 51-112 BROWN, JASON T & PHEOBE B 1205 MOWBRAY PL R-2 51-107 CARTER, NANCY D 1212 LONG ST R-2 51-111 K & C RESIDENCES LLC 1207-09 MOWBRAY PL R-2 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 51-108 CARTER, NANCY D & MATTHEW 1214 LONG ST R-2 R, JR Revised 8 June 2022 51-110 WRIGHT, MORGAN G C & JESSIE J 1211 MOWBRAY PL R-2 Revised 20 May 2022 50-1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE 1300 LONG ST R-2 Submitted 08 February 2022 49-94 TIGER, FUEL COMPANY 0 LONG ST B-2 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING CONDITIONS Sheet 3 of 13 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 50 0 50 100 150 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Graphic Scale: 1”=50’ project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN RIVER VISTA AVENUE MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK NETWORK UE AVE N Sheet 4 of 13 LAIR ST. C Phase 2 Phase 1 BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 1.4 AC 2.0 AC OTTER STREET CIRCLE TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 LANDONIA Revised 8 June 2022 50 0 50 100 150 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Graphic Scale: 1”=50’ project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING “A” Ancillary Use “S” Special Use Permit “B” By-Right “T” Temporary Use Permit DEVELOPMENT PLAN “P” Provisional Use Permit Change Proposed Between Existing R-2 Zoning & PUD MOUNT VIEW 1. Existing R-2 zoning included for reference purposes only PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT USE TABLE Sheet 5 of 13 USE TYPES USE TYPES USE TYPES Block 1 Block 1 Block 1 Non-Residential: General Existing R-2 Block 2 Non-Residential: Existing R-2 Block 2 Existing R-2 Block 2 Mount View Mount View Residential & Related Uses Mount View & Misc. Commercial Zoning1 Residential Retail Zoning1 Residential Zoning1 Residential Baptist Church Baptist Church Baptist Church Accessory buildings, Accessory buildings, B B B B Accessory apartment, structures and uses structures and uses P B external Art studio, GFA 4,000 SF Consumer service businesses: B Accessory apartment, or less Up to 2,000 SF, GFA B P B internal Temporary sales, Art workshop B Accessory buildings, outdoor (flea markets, B B B T structures and uses craft fairs, promotional Assembly (indoor): sales, etc.) Adult assisted living: Houses of worship B B B Other retail stores (non-specified): 1—8 residents B B Assembly (outdoor): Up to 2,000 SF, GFA B Dwellings: Temporary (outdoor Multifamily B B T T church services, etc.) Single-family attached B B Daycare facility S B Single-family detached B B Offices: Two-family B B Property management B Family day home: Parking: 1—5 children B B B Surface parking lot A A 6—12 children S S S Surface parking lot (more Home occupation P P P A A than 20 spaces) Occupancy, residential: Temporary parking T T 3 unrelated persons B B B facilities 4 unrelated persons B B B Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields and ball courts, swimming B B B pools, picnic shelters, etc. (city owned), and related concession stands Outdoor: Parks, playgrounds, ball fields TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 and ball courts, swimmng S B B pools, picnic shelters, etc. Revised 8 June 2022 (private) Revised 20 May 2022 Utility lines B B B Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAND USE PLAN Portion of River Vista Avenue Sheet 6 of 13 entrance within public ROW to meet local street standards unless design waivers are approved Setbacks RIVER VISTA AVENUE Entrance Block 1 | Mount Refer to land use plan for View Baptist Church required minimum setbacks Block 2 | Residential Refer to land use plan for required minimum setbacks Density Total Density of PUD 72 dwelling units / 3.4 AC = 22 DUA Not to exceed 22 DUA Building Envelope Residential Unit Count Building Envelope Block 1 | Mount Max 12 units View Baptist Church UE Area of future development Block 2 | Residential Max 60 units N Parking AVE for church and Building permitted uses Central Greenspace Parking Non-Residential Uses Envelope LAIR Block 1 | Mount Church - Max 20,000 SF Building View Baptist Church Daycare Facility - Max 6,000 SF Envelope ST. C Other permitted uses - Max Parking 2,000 SF Mount View Block 2 | Residential Property Management Office - 1,500 SF Baptist Church Entrance Building Height Building Envelope On-street Block 1 | Mount Maximum 35’ View Baptist Church parallel parking OTTER STREET Block 2 | Residential Maximum 35’ 10’ Multiuse Path Improve Parking Landonia Circle Parking to comply with Sec. 34-984 of the City Zoning Improve portion of Landonia to make road Ordinance unless reductions are pursued at site plan Circle with curb, concrete connection per Sec. 34-985 and are administratively approved CIRCLE apron, and rumble strips Please see the Land Please see the innovative design Disturbance Plan LANDONIA proposal for further details Exhibit included in the PUD packet for the extents of the Landonia Circle improvement TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 80 0 80 160 240 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Graphic Scale: 1”=80’ ROUTE 250 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE & Screening Buffer SCREENING EXHIBIT Minimum 8’ screening buffer with S-2 type Sheet 7 of 13 plantings Screening Fence Screening Buffer Screening Fence Minimum 10’ screening buffer with S-2 type plantings Pervious Pavers Sheltered Bike Parking Screening Buffer Minimum 10’ screening buffer with S-2 type plantings 10’ Multiuse Path Open Space Total PUD Site 3.4 AC Required Open Space 15% [Sec. 34-493] TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Minimum Required Open 0.5 AC or 21,780 SF Space in Mount View Revised 8 June 2022 50 0 50 100 150 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Per Sec. 34-493, open space must be useable for recreational Graphic Scale: 1”=50’ purposes, or provide visual, aesthetic, or environmental amenities. project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN Sheet 8 of 13 Landscape coverage requirements shall comply with Sec. 34-869(b)(2) of the City Zoning Ordinance TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 50 0 50 100 150 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Graphic Scale: 1”=50’ project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILITY PLAN Sheet 9 of 13 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 50 0 50 100 150 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 Graphic Scale: 1”=50’ project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING Homes on River Vista Ave DEVELOPMENT PLAN Homes on St. Clair Ave MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 10 of 13 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING Homes on River Vista Ave DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 11 of 13 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING Homes on St. Clair Ave Homes on River Vista Ave DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 12 of 13 TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING River Vista Ave DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MASSING DIAGRAM Sheet 13 of 13 Homes on River Vista Ave nc e ntra e e a Av V ist r ive R River Vista Ave ve aA ist rV ive nR so me Ho TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE REZONING EXHIBIT MOUNT VIEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAND DISTURBANCE PLAN Sheet 1 of 1 The “land disturbance plan” shows the initial phase of development as well as the limits of land disturbance proposed in the initial phase of the Mount View PUD. The limits of disturbance is approximately 2.5 acres, which includes off-site disturbance necessary for improvements to Landonia Circle and construction of the multi-use path. TMP(s) 49-65, 49-72.1, 49-72, & 49-73 Revised 8 June 2022 Revised 20 May 2022 Submitted 08 February 2022 project: 21.047 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. MOUNT VIEW | PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Study City of Charlottesville Rezoning Supplement PREPARED FOR Mount View PUD PREPARED BY Shimp Engineering, P.C. February 3, 2022 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 | 434-227-5140 | shimp-engineering.com PROJECT OVERVIEW Mount View Baptist Church is the Owner of tax map parcel 490065000, a 2.7-acre property zoned R-2 on St. Clair Avenue. Adjacent to this existing church are three R-2 parcels, 490072100, 490072000, and 490073000, located on Otter Street and Landonia Circle; Route 250 Houses, LLC is the Owner of 49-72.1 and 49-72 and Mount View Properties LLC is the Owner of 49-73 (the “property”). The 3.4-acre property is subject to a rezoning request to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Planned Unit Development will maintain the existing Mount View Baptist Church and proposes the construction of up to 72 residential units within the development, with supporting neighborhood commercial uses. River Vista Avenue TMP 49-72 0.29 AC TMP 49-65 2.56 AC e venu TMP 49-73 0.37 AC lair A TMP 49-72.1 St. C 0.18 AC Otter Street ircle Landonia C Route 250 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 2 The property has frontage on St. Clair Avenue, River Vista Avenue, Landonia Circle, and Otter Street. Two one-way entrances are currently present on St. Clair Avenue in Block 1, serving Mount View Baptist Church. Block 2 proposes River Vista Avenue an entrance on River Vista Avenue and another entrance on Landonia Circle. Landonia Circle immediately intersects with Route 250, a major transportation corridor for the City of nue Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and will serve as an e ir Av important connection for the development. While Landonia Block 1 Block 2 la St. C is designed as a looped roadway, the street is not presently complete; a narrow strip of grass bisects the eastern and Landonia Circle western sides of the street, with a guardrail to prevent vehicles Otter Street from driving on the unimproved portion of the road. If the PUD rezoning is approved, improvements would be made to Landonia Circle for complete road connection between the eastern and western sides of the street and to widen a portion of the western side of Landonia Circle. Otter Street is largely Landonia Circle unimproved and this project seeks to establish a multi-use East path within the Otter Street right-of-way to connect Landonia Circle and St. Clair Avenue; the multi-use path will not service vehicular traffic. Landonia Circle West SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 3 BLOCK 1 Existing entrances for Mount View Baptist Church (Block 1) are located on St. Clair Ave and any future reconfiguration of the one-way entrance and exit for Block 1 and Mount View Baptist Church will be located on St. Clair Avenue. According to the 2019 Virginia Department of Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates (AADT), St. Clair Avenue currently experiences up to 340 daily trips, with 38 trips occurring in the peak hour. With the PUD rezoning, Block 1 is proposed to allow for a maximum of 12 dwelling units, maximum 20,000 SF of church use, maximum 6,000 SF of pre-school use, and 2,000 SF of other non-residential uses. The square footage maximums are provided to allow for flexibility in the event of future redevelopment in Block 1 however, given the height restrictions and parking requirements for this site, this maximum build-out scenario is unlikely. Because this maximum build-out scenario is unlikely, this traffic study estimates 4,000 SF of the existing church converted to daycare facility use, 10,000 SF of the church use to be maintained, and the development of 12 low-rise multifamily units. Block 1 ITE Code IV AM Peak PM Peak Daily Total In Out Total In Out Total Day Care 565 4,000 SF 23 21 44 20 24 44 190 Facility Church 560 10,000 SF 2 1 3 2 3 5 70 Low-Rise 220 12 Units 1 5 6 6 3 9 50 Multifamily Total 26 27 53 28 30 58 310 St. Clair Avenue currently experiences peak hour traffic volume of 38 trips, and the Block 1 uses could potentially increase peak hour traffic volume up to 96 trips. While the new anticipated trip generation is higher than existing conditions, the primary driver of the trip generation would be the proposed preschool use within Block 1. The PUD is surrounded by predominately by single-family detached units and a neighborhood daycare facility would be highly attractive to nearby families that could walk with their child to daycare and reduce the conservative trip generation estimate. Moreover, due to Block 1’s position on St. Clair Avenue and the proximity to Route 250 and Watson Avenue, vehicular trips would only travel on a small portion of St. Clair Avenue, approximately 300’, to reach their destination in Block SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 4 1 when coming from Route 250 and would similarly leave in the same direction PEA RTR EE LA headed towards Route 250. Additionally, the Locust Grove neighborhood features NE other residential streets that facilitate higher traffic volumes while maintaining their SMI residential character. Calhoun Street experiences a peak hour volume of 459 trips TH S TRE ET and Holmes Avenue experiences a peak hour volume of 241 trips. Peak hour trips of 96 trips on a relatively short portion of St. Clair Avenue could be managed without adverse impacts to the residential character of the neighborhood. AVE AIR AVE CL ST. CAL AIR HOU N ST ST. GEORGE AV REE E T L ST. C BELLEVIEW AVE WA TSO NA VEN UE RIVER VISTA AVE RO UTE 250 WAT SON ROU AVE TE 2 50 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 5 BLOCK 2 Two entrances would provide vehicular access for Block 2, located on River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle. According to 2019 VDOT AADT estimates, River Vista Avenue experiences approximately 190 trips per day, with 24 trips occurring in the peak hour. Because VDOT does not provide AADT data for Landonia Circle, a traffic count was conducted to evaluate peak hour trips on the roadway. According to data collected by Quality Counts, an average of 28 trips occur during the morning peak hour and an average of 60 trips occur during the evening peak hour on Landonia Circle. Data was collected mid-week while school was in session. From the collected data, left turns out of Landonia Circle onto Route Landonia Circle AM In AM Out AM 250 are low, relative to other traffic movements. At this intersection, Morning Peak Total EB WB Total SBL SBR Total Route 250 has four through lanes, two EB and two WB, and one EB Wednesday 9 14 23 2 6 8 31 (10/27/2021) left turn lane into Landonia Circle. Navigating this intersection to Thursday 10 10 20 1 4 5 25 make a left-out from Landonia can be difficult to maneuver, especially (10/28/2021) during peak hour times. Route 250 Long Street experiences an AADT Average 9.5 12 21.5 1.5 5 6.5 28 of 41,000, with 3,157 trips occurring in the peak hour. Landonia Circle PM In PM Out PM Evening Peak Total EB WB Total SBL SBR Total Wednesday 15 19 34 3 23 26 60 (10/27/2021) Thursday 16 13 29 4 27 31 60 (10/28/2021) Average 15.5 16 31.5 3.5 25 28.5 60 Route 250 Long Street 0.49-mile segment from Locust Avenue to High Street AADT 41000 K 0.077 D 0.573 Peak Hour Volume 3,157 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 6 Block 2 is proposed for residential uses of up to 60 multifamily units and a supporting commercial use of up to 1,500 SF for property management office purposes. Block 2 ITE Code IV AM Peak PM Peak Daily Total In Out Total In Out Total Low-Rise 220 60 Units 6 23 29 23 14 37 413 Multifamily Small Office 712 1,500 SF 2 1 3 1 3 4 24 Building Total 8 24 32 24 17 41 437 With the known traffic conditions of Route 250, trips during the morning and evening peak hour would be distributed between the two entrances dependent on the destination. The following assumptions were taken in evaluating the impact on River Vista Avenue and Landonia Circle/Route 250. Traffic Movements To simplify the traffic analysis, all trips moving westbound on Route 250 are assumed to travel south on Landonia Circle to make the right turn directly onto Route 250 and all trips moving eastbound on Route 250 are assumed to take River Vista Avenue to Coleman Street, Belleview Avenue, and River Road to make the left-turn maneuver at the signalized intersection to travel east. In reality, some trips may utilize Landonia Circle to Coleman Street, Belleview Avenue, and River Road to make the left-turn movement onto Route 250 East (see diagram on page 8). Morning Peak Hour In the morning peak hour, a small number of trips are anticipated to enter the site. 50% of trips coming into the site are estimated to utilize the River Vista Avenue entrance and 50% of trips are estimated to utilize the Landonia Circle entrance. The majority of trips leaving this residential block in the morning are likely commuting to their place of work. During the morning peak hour, 60% of traffic travels west on Route 250 towards Downtown Charlottesville and the University of Virginia and 40% of traffic travels east on Route 250. As a predominantly residential development, trips leaving Block 2 are expected to follow the commuting pattern of Route 250’s directional travel. Similarly, 60% of trips leaving Block 2 would utilize Landonia Circle, to turn right on Route 250 and travel west. For vehicles traveling east on Route 250, Landonia Circle would likely be avoided; real-time traffic data provided by Quality Counts of Landonia Circle suggests that approximately 23% of trips out of Landonia Circle make the left-out maneuver to travel east on Route 250 (SBL) during the morning peak hour and about 12% of trips make the SBL movement during the evening SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 7 ST TO AN U RI V RO VA M E ER AV LE UT & V R IST CO E IR N T VE 25 T. 2 N AA LA A OW 0 9 VE BE DO ST .C TO OCU LL ST W EV L IE W AV LA E ND ON IA CIR RD R VE RI TO CO PA R R N TO N IDO PS ST OW RO R & CO UT SE MM GH N T E2 N T ER HI OW 50 AR CIA A/ MJ L D TO H peak hour. This could indicate that six trips could be added to the SBL movement in the morning peak and two trips could be added to the SBL movement in the evening peak. Due to the presence of five lanes, vehicles traveling up to 45-mph, and peak hour queue length often backing up to this median cut, residents would be encouraged to take the River Vista entrance to travel to the River Road/Route 250 signalized intersection, where vehicles would more easily take the left to travel east on Route 250. Evening Peak Hour The majority of trips entering the site in the evening are likely commuting home from their place of work. During the evening peak hour on Route 250, 60% of traffic travels east and 40% of traffic travels west. Likewise, 60% of trips into Block 2 would enter from Route 250, onto Landonia Circle. 40% of trips into the site would utilize Locust Avenue or River Road to enter from River Vista Avenue. Trips out of the site in the evening would be split 50/50, as the River Vista entrance would be utilized to travel east on Route 250, to reach the Pantops SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 8 commercial corridor, and the Landonia entrance would be utilized to travel west, towards Downtown Charlottesville and other commercial options in the northern and western area of town. Taking the morning and evening peak hour assumptions, Block 2 trips would be distributed between the two entrances as shown below. Block 2 ITE Code IV AM Peak PM Peak Daily Total In Out Total In Out Total Low-Rise 220 60 Units 6 23 29 23 14 37 413 Multifamily Small Office 712 1,500 SF 2 1 3 1 3 4 24 Building Total 8 24 32 24 17 41 437 River Vista Entrance 4 10 14 10 8 18 - Landonia Circle Entrance 4 14 18 14 9 23 - 10 Towards River Road/ From Locust Avenue 8 From River Road Route 250 East 4 10 4 14 14 9 Towards Route 250 West From Route 250 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 9 With the assumptions in place, 14 new trips are anticipated to travel on River Vista Avenue during the morning peak hour and 18 trips are anticipated to travel on River Vista Avenue during the evening peak hour. According to 2019 estimates, River Vista Avenue experiences 24 trips during the peak hour. An approximate 38-42 trips on River Vista during the peak hour would function similarly to the existing traffic conditions on St. Clair Avenue, which similarly experiences peak hour traffic of 38 trips. Like St. Clair Avenue, River Vista is approximately 28’ in width and features enough road width for on-street parking, sidewalks on one or both sides of the street, and two-way vehicular travel where vehicles are only parked on one side of the street . An additional 14-18 peak hour trips on River Vista would not detract from the residential character of the street or functionality of the roadway, as St. Clair Avenue and other connecting streets in the Locust Grove neighborhood experience similar or higher volumes of traffic without identified safety issues. 18 new trips are anticipated to travel on Landonia Circle during the morning peak hour and 23 new trips are anticipated during the evening peak hour. According to the 2021 traffic study, Landonia Circle experiences 29 trips during the morning peak hour and 60 trips during the evening peak hour. With the improvements to Landonia with this project, such as increasing the pavement width for two-way vehicular travel and improving the street to City standards, Landonia Circle would be able to effectively manage an additional 18-23 trips during the peak hour. This conservative traffic study seeks to predict maximum travel in one direction to analyze potential traffic outcomes. In reality, the planned unit development is proposed to be located within a well-connected block network, that allows for opportunities of travel in a variety of directions. Moreover, its central location, the surrounding neighborhood blocks, and the proposed shared-use path invites residents to walk or cycle to their destinations, further reducing possible trips generated by the new use. In summary, this site is integrated into a well-connected block network that will disperse trips affiliated with this site, limiting impacts from this development on any signular roadway or intersection. SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. Mount View Planned Unit Development | Trip Generation + Traffic Impact Analysis 10 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (W) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595901 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 8 23 Peak-Hour: 7:50 AM -- 8:50 AM 12.5 0 Peak 15-Min: 8:35 AM -- 8:50 AM 6 0 2 16.7 0 0 1856 12 14 1861 5.2 0 0 5.2 1316 0.93 1847 4.3 5.2 1328 0 0 1318 4.3 0 0 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (W) Landonia Cir (W) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 57 0 0 0 73 0 0 132 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 92 1 0 163 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 93 0 0 162 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 125 0 0 212 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 173 0 0 269 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 127 1 0 219 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 102 0 0 192 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 152 0 0 249 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 123 0 0 0 129 1 0 254 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 119 0 2 0 140 0 0 263 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 134 0 2 0 158 1 0 298 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 129 0 0 0 162 1 0 293 2706 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 138 1 0 230 2804 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 114 0 1 0 157 2 0 275 2916 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 142 1 0 243 2997 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 108 0 0 0 164 1 0 275 3060 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 101 0 0 0 139 0 0 242 3033 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 97 0 0 0 128 1 0 229 3043 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 102 0 0 0 152 1 0 256 3107 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 160 3 0 266 3124 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 115 0 0 0 174 0 0 290 3160 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 122 0 0 0 173 2 0 300 3197 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 92 0 1 0 175 1 0 270 3169 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 88 0 0 0 149 1 0 239 3115 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 8 1360 0 0 0 2028 20 0 3424 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 88 0 132 Buses Pedestrians 0 4 0 0 4 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 1 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (W) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595902 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 26 34 Peak-Hour: 4:20 PM -- 5:20 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM 23 0 3 0 0 0 1563 15 19 1559 2.5 0 0 2.5 1306 0.96 1540 3.1 2.5 1321 0 0 1309 3 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (W) Landonia Cir (W) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 109 0 0 0 126 0 0 237 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 116 0 0 0 134 3 0 257 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 94 0 1 0 104 0 0 206 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 98 0 0 0 104 3 0 208 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 116 0 0 0 128 1 0 247 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 113 0 0 0 130 0 0 248 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 111 0 0 0 118 4 0 239 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 110 0 0 0 118 2 0 232 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 114 0 0 0 134 0 0 250 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100 0 0 0 138 0 0 239 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 105 0 0 0 121 3 0 233 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 110 0 0 0 113 0 0 229 2825 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 107 0 0 0 117 4 0 230 2818 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 111 0 0 0 135 1 0 250 2811 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 101 0 0 0 145 2 0 253 2858 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 108 0 0 0 143 2 0 256 2906 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 137 2 0 236 2895 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 102 0 0 0 144 0 0 249 2896 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 106 0 0 0 122 1 0 234 2891 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 110 0 0 0 129 3 0 246 2905 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 107 0 0 0 126 0 0 238 2893 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 96 0 0 0 138 1 0 241 2895 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 83 2 0 188 2850 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 102 0 0 0 124 1 0 231 2852 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 8 0 16 0 20 1280 0 0 0 1692 20 0 3036 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 32 0 60 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 2 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (W) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595903 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 5 20 Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 4 0 1 0 0 0 1756 19 10 1754 4.8 0 0 4.8 1401 0.88 1743 4.2 4.8 1420 0 1 1403 4.2 0 0 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (W) Landonia Cir (W) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 72 1 0 130 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 64 1 0 147 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 112 2 0 171 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 130 0 0 201 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 87 0 0 0 131 2 0 221 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 136 0 0 229 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 91 0 0 0 130 0 0 222 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 138 0 0 223 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 132 0 0 0 171 3 0 309 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 136 0 4 0 162 0 0 303 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 131 0 4 0 154 1 0 294 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 129 0 0 0 153 0 0 283 2733 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 135 0 0 243 2846 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 0 119 3 0 241 2940 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 104 0 0 0 120 0 0 226 2995 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 105 0 0 0 139 0 0 245 3039 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 136 0 0 245 3063 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 121 0 0 0 130 3 0 256 3090 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 165 0 1 276 3144 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 97 0 1 0 159 0 0 258 3179 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 118 0 0 0 145 0 0 264 3134 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 170 1 0 273 3104 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 151 3 0 247 3057 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 135 0 0 228 3002 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 24 1596 0 32 0 1948 16 0 3624 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 100 0 164 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 3 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (W) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595904 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 31 29 Peak-Hour: 4:25 PM -- 5:25 PM 3.2 0 Peak 15-Min: 4:50 PM -- 5:05 PM 27 0 4 3.7 0 0 1654 17 13 1639 2.5 0 0 2.4 1426 0.95 1626 3.9 2.5 1443 0 0 1430 3.8 0 0 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (W) Landonia Cir (W) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 125 0 0 0 137 1 0 267 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 96 0 0 0 133 1 0 234 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 117 0 1 0 138 1 0 259 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 107 0 0 0 100 0 0 210 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 101 0 0 0 127 2 0 234 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 117 0 0 0 122 1 0 244 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 114 0 0 0 130 0 0 252 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 113 0 0 0 126 0 0 240 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 116 0 0 0 140 3 0 263 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 116 0 1 0 132 3 0 257 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 126 0 0 0 142 0 0 272 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 116 0 0 0 140 2 0 262 2994 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 131 0 0 0 146 0 0 282 3009 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 118 0 0 0 143 0 0 264 3039 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 123 0 0 0 137 1 0 264 3044 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 123 0 0 0 149 1 0 275 3109 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 113 0 0 0 119 2 0 238 3113 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 118 4 0 235 3104 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 115 0 0 0 110 2 0 233 3085 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 117 0 0 0 126 3 0 248 3093 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 132 0 0 0 112 0 0 252 3082 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 131 0 0 0 128 2 0 264 3089 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 127 0 0 0 102 3 0 235 3052 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 114 0 0 0 99 1 0 216 3006 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 12 1492 0 0 0 1712 8 0 3264 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 28 0 64 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 4 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (E) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595905 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 5 10 Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 4 0 1 0 0 0 1835 11 0 1830 5 0 0 5 1316 0.93 1830 4.7 5 1327 0 0 1317 4.7 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (E) Landonia Cir (E) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 70 0 0 131 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 64 0 0 0 102 0 0 167 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 73 0 0 0 81 0 0 156 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 0 0 0 131 1 0 208 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 106 0 0 0 173 0 0 280 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 122 0 0 210 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 90 0 0 0 101 0 0 193 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 92 0 0 0 149 0 0 243 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 112 0 0 0 127 0 0 240 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 131 0 0 0 151 0 0 283 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 127 0 0 0 161 0 0 291 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 123 0 0 0 153 0 0 277 2679 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 73 0 0 0 141 0 0 215 2763 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 0 0 160 0 0 270 2866 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 103 0 1 0 138 0 0 244 2954 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 105 0 0 0 168 0 0 274 3020 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 101 0 0 0 133 0 0 237 2977 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 118 0 0 0 133 0 0 252 3019 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 159 0 0 265 3091 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 104 0 0 0 163 0 0 268 3116 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 170 0 0 286 3162 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 104 0 0 0 173 0 0 278 3157 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 148 0 0 247 3113 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 71 0 0 0 120 0 0 195 3031 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 12 1524 0 0 0 1860 0 0 3404 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 92 0 152 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 5 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (E) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595906 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 11 8 Peak-Hour: 4:20 PM -- 5:20 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:05 PM -- 5:20 PM 11 0 0 0 0 0 1583 6 2 1574 2.5 0 0 2.5 1277 0.97 1572 2.1 2.5 1283 0 0 1277 2.1 0 0 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (E) Landonia Cir (E) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 123 0 0 223 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 98 0 0 0 135 0 0 236 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 107 0 0 204 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 112 0 0 0 105 0 0 218 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 133 1 0 255 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 106 0 0 0 136 0 0 243 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 119 0 0 225 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 103 0 0 0 117 0 0 224 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 104 0 0 0 131 0 0 241 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 97 0 0 0 138 0 0 236 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 124 1 0 227 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 121 0 0 0 113 0 0 235 2767 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 130 0 0 243 2787 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 102 0 0 0 134 0 0 239 2790 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 97 0 0 0 147 0 0 245 2831 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 150 0 0 255 2868 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 139 1 0 237 2850 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 103 0 0 0 143 0 0 247 2854 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 125 0 0 230 2859 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 99 0 0 0 122 0 0 223 2858 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 104 0 0 0 131 0 0 238 2855 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 95 0 0 0 135 1 0 233 2852 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 102 0 0 0 87 0 0 190 2815 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 102 0 0 0 122 0 0 228 2808 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 1216 0 0 0 1724 0 0 2956 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 32 0 44 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 6 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (E) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595907 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 8 9 Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 7 0 1 0 0 0 1756 10 0 1748 5 0 0 5 1390 0.90 1748 4.7 5 1400 0 0 1391 4.6 0 0 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (E) Landonia Cir (E) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 74 1 0 130 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 81 0 0 0 73 0 0 155 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 59 0 0 0 109 0 0 170 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 68 0 0 0 132 0 0 201 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 133 0 0 220 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 139 0 0 227 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 93 0 0 0 126 0 0 221 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 1 0 140 0 0 225 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 125 0 0 0 168 0 0 296 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 132 0 0 0 166 0 0 301 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 128 0 0 0 153 0 0 283 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 121 0 0 0 154 0 0 276 2705 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 0 133 0 0 257 2832 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 1 0 127 0 0 229 2906 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 115 0 0 0 120 0 0 237 2973 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 103 0 0 0 140 0 0 244 3016 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 111 0 0 0 133 0 0 245 3041 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114 0 0 0 138 0 0 252 3066 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 122 0 0 0 166 0 0 290 3135 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 94 0 0 0 150 0 0 246 3156 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 0 149 0 0 266 3126 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 168 0 0 275 3100 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 91 0 0 0 154 0 0 247 3064 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 89 0 0 0 129 0 0 220 3008 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 0 16 1540 0 0 0 1948 0 0 3520 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 104 0 172 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 7 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Landonia Cir (E) -- Long St QC JOB #: 15595908 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 18 9 Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 4:50 PM -- 5:05 PM 18 0 0 0 0 0 1611 8 2 1594 2.3 0 0 2.3 1460 0.95 1592 2.4 2.3 1468 0 0 1460 2.4 0 0 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Landonia Cir (E) Landonia Cir (E) Long St Long St Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 123 0 0 0 136 0 0 262 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 134 0 0 224 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 137 0 0 260 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 103 0 0 211 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 0 130 0 0 234 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 0 0 123 0 0 233 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 110 0 0 0 123 1 0 235 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 129 0 0 241 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 107 0 0 0 136 0 0 245 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 109 0 0 0 138 0 0 248 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 126 0 0 0 142 0 0 274 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 117 0 0 0 146 0 0 265 2932 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 0 145 0 0 272 2942 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 125 0 0 0 145 0 0 272 2990 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 118 0 0 0 139 0 0 258 2988 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 124 0 0 0 146 0 0 272 3049 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 119 0 0 0 128 1 0 249 3064 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 0 0 0 123 1 0 242 3073 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 117 0 0 0 116 0 0 237 3075 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 117 0 0 0 124 0 0 244 3078 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 126 0 1 0 110 0 0 240 3073 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 0 0 0 128 0 0 255 3080 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 0 0 103 0 0 220 3026 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 113 0 0 0 101 0 0 215 2976 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 8 1480 0 0 0 1732 0 0 3244 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 28 0 60 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 8 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- Landonia Cir QC JOB #: 15595909 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 1 4 Peak-Hour: 7:05 AM -- 8:05 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:35 AM -- 7:50 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.50 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St Landonia Cir Landonia Cir Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 9 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- Landonia Cir QC JOB #: 15595910 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 8 5 Peak-Hour: 4:50 PM -- 5:50 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:35 PM -- 5:50 PM 4 0 4 0 0 0 5 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0.50 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St Landonia Cir Landonia Cir Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 11 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 14 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 28 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 10 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- Landonia Cir QC JOB #: 15595911 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 2 3 Peak-Hour: 7:35 AM -- 8:35 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:35 AM -- 7:50 AM 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.63 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St Landonia Cir Landonia Cir Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 11 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- Landonia Cir QC JOB #: 15595912 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 12 7 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:10 PM -- 5:25 PM 9 0 3 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.53 0 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St Landonia Cir Landonia Cir Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 5:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 12 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595913 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 3 8 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 33.3 0 Peak 15-Min: 8:40 AM -- 8:55 AM 3 0 0 33.3 0 0 7 9 0 0 14.3 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 7:05 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:25 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:50 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 10 8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8:25 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 8:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 13 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595914 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 8 5 Peak-Hour: 5:00 PM -- 6:00 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:25 PM -- 5:40 PM 4 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 11 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:10 PM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:35 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:40 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:55 PM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 16 5:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 5:10 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 5:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 18 5:35 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 19 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 5:55 PM 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 21 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 8 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 28 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 14 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595915 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 7 6 Peak-Hour: 7:00 AM -- 8:00 AM 0 33.3 Peak 15-Min: 7:00 AM -- 7:15 AM 6 1 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 25 0 1 6 0 16.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:05 AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7:10 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:20 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 8:05 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 8:20 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 8:35 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 13 8:50 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 8:55 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 14 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 8 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 15 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Coleman St -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595916 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 7 12 Peak-Hour: 4:55 PM -- 5:55 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 5:15 PM -- 5:30 PM 3 4 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count Coleman St Coleman St River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4:30 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:40 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 5:10 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 5:15 PM 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 25 5:20 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 26 5:25 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 27 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 5:40 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 29 5:50 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 5:55 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 29 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 8 12 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 48 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 16 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: St Clair Ave -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595917 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 12 21 Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM 8.3 9.5 Peak 15-Min: 8:45 AM -- 9:00 AM 0 9 3 0 11.1 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 33.3 11.8 0 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 0 0 7.1 14.3 0 18 4 0 5.6 25 23 22 8.7 9.1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count St Clair Ave St Clair Ave River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 7:05 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7:10 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:20 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 7:35 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 7:40 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:50 AM 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 7:55 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 8:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 31 8:05 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 8:10 AM 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 8:15 AM 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 39 8:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 39 8:25 AM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 41 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 38 8:35 AM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 39 8:40 AM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 42 8:45 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 48 8:50 AM 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 46 8:55 AM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 51 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 36 4 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 72 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 8 0 8 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 17 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: St Clair Ave -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595918 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Wed, Oct 27 2021 32 41 Peak-Hour: 4:35 PM -- 5:35 PM 6.3 4.9 Peak 15-Min: 4:35 PM -- 4:50 PM 0 26 6 0 7.7 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 11.1 0 0.85 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 0 0 20 0 0 36 8 0 5.6 0 31 44 9.7 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count St Clair Ave St Clair Ave River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4:05 PM 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4:10 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4:15 PM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 7 4:20 PM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 4:25 PM 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4:30 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4:35 PM 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4:40 PM 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 4:45 PM 0 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 4:50 PM 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4:55 PM 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 70 5:00 PM 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 72 5:05 PM 0 4 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 78 5:10 PM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 80 5:15 PM 0 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 81 5:20 PM 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 84 5:25 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 81 5:30 PM 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 85 5:35 PM 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 83 5:40 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 79 5:45 PM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 77 5:50 PM 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 79 5:55 PM 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 83 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 32 16 0 12 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 100 Heavy Trucks 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 18 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: St Clair Ave -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595919 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 14 19 Peak-Hour: 7:40 AM -- 8:40 AM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 7:40 AM -- 7:55 AM 0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 0 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count St Clair Ave St Clair Ave River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 7:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 7:05 AM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 7:10 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 7:20 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:25 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7:35 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:40 AM 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 7:50 AM 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 7:55 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 36 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 8:05 AM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 8:10 AM 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 37 8:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 8:20 AM 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 40 8:25 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 8:30 AM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 39 8:35 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 41 8:40 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 39 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 41 8:50 AM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 39 8:55 AM 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 40 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 16 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 52 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 0 0 8 4 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 19 of 20 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: St Clair Ave -- River Vista Ave QC JOB #: 15595920 CITY/STATE: Charlottesville, VA DATE: Thu, Oct 28 2021 15 34 Peak-Hour: 4:20 PM -- 5:20 PM 0 0 Peak 15-Min: 4:55 PM -- 5:10 PM 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 0 0.70 0 0 0 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0 0 0 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5-Min Count St Clair Ave St Clair Ave River Vista Ave River Vista Ave Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Total Hourly Totals Beginning At Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U 4:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 4:05 PM 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 4:10 PM 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:20 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4:25 PM 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 4:30 PM 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 4:35 PM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4:40 PM 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4:45 PM 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 4:50 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 4:55 PM 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 9 59 5:00 PM 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 64 5:05 PM 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 65 5:10 PM 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 69 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 70 5:20 PM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 69 5:25 PM 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 68 5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 65 5:35 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 64 5:40 PM 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 63 5:45 PM 0 4 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 68 5:50 PM 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 70 5:55 PM 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 67 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Total Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U Left Thru Right U All Vehicles 0 40 16 0 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 100 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buses Pedestrians 4 0 0 4 8 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scooters Comments: Report generated on 11/4/2021 3:51 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 Page 20 of 20 Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet-Mount View PUD Step 1: Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Site A. Total size of development site: 3.40 acres B. Total square footage of site: 3.40 x 43,560.00 = 148,104.00 square feet (sf) (# of acres) C. 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 148,104.00 (total sf of site) D. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of ALL buildings/uses: 68529.76 sf E. Total site FAR: 68,529.76 ÷ 148,104.00 = 0.46 (total GFA of site) (1.0 FAR) F. Is E greater than or equal to 1.0 FAR? NO: Your proposed development does not trigger the ADU ordinance. YES: Proceed to Step 2 or Step 3. G. GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR: 68,529.76 - 148,104.00 = -79,574.24 (D: total site GFA) (B: total SF of site) H. Total GFA of ADUs required: -79,574.24 x 0.05 = -3,978.71 (G: GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR) I. Equivalent density based on Units Per Acre: i. Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) approved by SUP: ii. SF needed for ADUs: -3,978.71 ÷ 43,560.00 = -0.0913387 acres (H: Total GFA of ADUs) iii. Total number of ADUs required: -0.0913387 x 0.00 = 0.00 (ii: ADU acreage) (i: DUA approved) Step 3: Cash-in-Lieu Payment J. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Residential: 68,529.76 x $2.370 = $162,415.53 K. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Mixed-Use: Total GFA of development site: GFA Occupied Commercial Space: GFA Occupied Residential Space: Total GFA Occupied Space: 0.00 % Residential: #DIV/0! Propotionate amount of non- occupied space GFA for residential GFA Non-Occupied Space*: 0.00 use: #DIV/0! Amount of Payment: #DIV/0! x $2.370 = #DIV/0! *GFA of non-occupied space shall include: (i) basements, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, (ii) spaces used or occupied for mechanical equipment and having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (iii) penthouses, (iv) attic space, whether or not a floor has been laid, having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (v) interior balconies, and (vi) mezzanines. GFA shall not include outside balconies that do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building; parking structures below or above grade; or and roof top mechanical structures. Step 4: Minimum Term of Affordability L. Residential Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability*: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. M. Mixed-Use Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. Support for Mountain View PUD Alissa Ujie Diamond Wed 4/20/2022 10:21 AM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good morning Ms. Rainey, I am a resident of Charlottesville's Locust Grove Neighborhood (1021 St. Clair Ave), and would like to express my support for the PUD plans by Shimp engineering for the Mountain View Church site. I am excited to see more housing come to our neighborhood (including the affordable units), and also, as a parent with young children would have appreciated a day care option so close to my home. I hope you will support the project too! Best, Alissa Ujie Diamond FW: Mountain View rezoning Creasy, Missy Fri 4/22/2022 9:00 AM To: Rainey, Carrie From: Amanda Burbage Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 8:20 AM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Mountain View rezoning ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good morning, Could you please share this with Carrie? I couldn't find her contact info on the website. Thanks, Mandy *** Dear Ms. Rainey, I live at 1203 Belleview Ave., one block from the proposed rezoning. I am writing to express my support for this project on the grounds that it adds much needed housing to our city at a scale and density that I feel is appropriate for an urban infill project. There are few remaining sites like this in the city, and a development with by right R2 density would be a lost opportunity for our community. I would prefer to see the developer include a minimum of 15% affordable units with an affordability term that is longer than 10 years if possible. Thanks for your time and your service to our city, Mandy Burbage Re: Mount View Project Ben Henderson Fri 4/22/2022 11:15 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Carrie- I would like to express my support for the Mount View project. If at all possible, I would encourage the City to: maximize the number of housing units regardless of market segment (affordable / market rate) strongly consider 1st floor commercial and/or office space strongly consider 2nd floor office space use this project to kick-off planning for the Locust Grove neighborhood in a manner that encourages a diversity of housing options and a mix of uses; increases housing density; considers green infrastructure for stormwater management; improves multi-modal transportation with an emphasis on bike/ped facilities; integrates, rejuvenates, and creates more open space/parkland; and activates the Rivanna River corridor. River Road, Locust Ave, and Saint Clair Ave are the three major corridors in the neighborhood. River Road and the segment of Saint Clair Ave proximate to 250 seem to be ideal locations to introduce commercial and office uses and to increase housing density. Rather than muddle through with a reactive SUP here and there, I would love to see a proactive and comprehensive plan for the future of the neighborhood. Thanks for all your hard work. Ben Henderson, AICP 1010 Saint Clair Ave On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 2:44 PM Ben Henderson wrote: Thank you! On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rainey, Carrie wrote: Hi Ben, Thank you for providing the circulated letter, I had not received a copy. The application materials are available at the following dropbox (too large for email). The PDF labeled "rezoning application" includes the applicant's narrative, PUD plan, renderings, etc. Please let me know if you have any questions or problems with the files. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t5zqewp09nsxirz/AADzrXDvbnj_bCOn8KV__4y8a?dl=0 Regards, Carrie I’m in favor of the Housing & Day Care on St Clair Ave Benjamin Randolph Wed 4/20/2022 4:37 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Carrie, I’m writing to express my full support for the proposed housing development and day care center on St Clair Ave. I live a little less than a mile from this site and I would welcome the additional housing and day care center in the neighborhood. I love that it’s only 0.4 miles to Burnley Moran and 0.6 miles to the Ting Pavilion. Thank you, Benjamin Randolph 423 Meade Ave. FW: Mountain View Rezoning - Support Creasy, Missy Fri 4/22/2022 3:02 PM To: Rainey, Carrie From: Brian Simalchik Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 3:00 PM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Mountain View Rezoning - Support ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Ms. Rainey, My name is Brian Simalchik and I live at 1218 Belleview Avenue (just a few hundred feet from the proposed rezoning). I wanted to write to express support for this rezoning and the overall project. Our city has a critical housing shortage and this project and the proposed density seem appropriate for the site and necessary for the city overall. The only area where I am dissatisfied is with the number of affordable housing units. This city is in an affordable housing crisis. Developers need to do better - and this project needs to be at least 15% affordable, with a period of affordability longer than 10 years. To require less is to fail to do the essential work that the city needs, now more than ever. Many thanks for your time. If there is someone else this note should go to instead, please don't hesitate to pass it along or provide me with an alternative contact. Many thanks, Brian Simalchik 1218 Belleview Avenue Mount View Planned Unit development Carrie Comfort Thu 4/21/2022 5:35 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Carrie, I saw a friend post about this development on FB today. I already sent a letter along with some neighbors, but when I saw your email address posted today, I wanted to reach out via email as well. I was born in Cville and I’ve lived on River Vista Ave for 10 years. We love Cville and we love our neighborhood. I love the idea of additional housing units here as Charlottesville is desperately in need of affordable housing, but I feel like the current proposal of 60-72 units is too many. And it appears these are going to end up as more luxury type units that won’t be affordable to low income or middle class families. I urge you to consider less units. I also urge you to consider that there be a plan to add an entrance/exit at Landonia Circle (which is also in desperate need of some maintenance and care from the city) regardless of the number of units I also ask you to consider making the 250 bypass exit onto st Clair safer (visibility, speed humps, completed and safer sidewalks). People already speed off the highway down st Clair and it’s the route many of us walk to and from Burnley-Moran Elementary School with our children. With the increased traffic we will have due to this development, we need it to be safer for our kiddos. I’ve seen a car miss the exit ramp and try to get over and run off the road and take out signs and run up on the sidewalk. Terrifying thought that it could’ve been one of our children walking home from school in the path of that car. It’s not a safe exit ramp and we are going to add more traffic to it with this development. Please also consider that many homes on River Vista Ave do not have driveways and it’s a narrow street with cars parked on the road and incomplete sidewalks. Is there a plan to complete sidewalks on River vista avenue along with this development? We need completed sidewalks for two neighbors that we know of who use a wheelchair and need safe pathways. Is there plan to for St Clair and River Vista Ave to make the added traffic of 60-72 units somewhat safe on these roads? Is there enough parking for said units? Or will more people be parking on River Vista Ave where it’s already hard to drive as if it were a two lane road? I support the development of this land, but not in this way. It’s way too many units for this space as currently proposed. And not nearly enough affordable units. I certainly don’t like the idea of the affordable unit requirements expiring after 10 years as I’ve read. Please ensure this won’t just be another high-end/luxury apartment development with no parking and no affordable housing. And please think about the effect of the entrances and exits on the neighbors. Overall suggestions: Less units (60-72 is too many), more affordable units available for a longer term (if not forever), completed sidewalks in surrounding areas, add exit and entrance on Landonia circle and possibly through church parking lot since it’s their development, enough parking for the units, green space, safer exit ramp from 250 to St Clair Ave, speed humps on St Clair coming off the ramp and in front of the church to slow down the additional traffic, and a storm water run-off plan. I know these requests are costly, but I’m sure the developers will still make money. I see what the new units on the corner of River Road and Belleview rent for and I can’t imagine those are affordable for most in the city. I don’t think we need another luxury condo community. It’s important to have green, affordable, safe, and thoughtful growth in Charlottesville. Please keep this in mind when making recommendations to City Council. Carrie Carrie Comfort 434-466-2114 Sent from my mobile phone FW: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Creasy, Missy Mon 4/25/2022 8:05 AM To: Rainey, Carrie From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 7:13 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Charles Last Name Aller Contact Phone Number: 4349622668 Email Address: charlie.aller@gmail.com Enter your message here City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Date 4/22/2022 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg; My name is Charles R. Aller. I live at 910 Martin St, Charlottesville VA 22901.I have been living here since 2015. Please recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied for the following reasons: • The Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. • This is the maximum housing density allowed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R2 zoning already allows 1-2 units per lot, which, if this property were re-parceled, could yield 30 new units. This density is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. • The Project does not provide storm water management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% on site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn't keep the Rivanna River clean, • The Project includes the creation of a new street which would connect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking and incomplete sidewalks. I oppose this dangerous entrance. • The Project does not alter the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Landonia Circle or the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Saint Clair Avenue. These exit ramps are already insufficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypass. I request that both ramps be expanded to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. • The Project's provision for a daycare center in the church would further increase traffic, especially at peak times, and it would also create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles. I request that intense traffic calming measures be implemented throughout the neighborhood; above all, I request speed humps to be installed on Saint Uair Avenue in front of the church. • The Project includes only seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12 . percent of the proposed units. All seven are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. Mid-range housing is still very expensive for the people in Charlottesville for whom affordable housing is difficult to find. I recognize that the requests I am making to change the Project cost money, and that an attempt may be made to pass those costs on to the renter in the form of higher rates. I oppose that attempt and request that in no way the renter be further burdened economically. Charlottesville does not need more luxury condos. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charles R. Aller Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Creasy, Missy Thu 4/21/2022 5:55 AM To: Rainey, Carrie Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:41:36 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Tavia Last Name Brown Contact Phone Number: 434-466-4042 Email Address: tavia@taviametal.com Enter your message here City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Mount View PUD Proposed Rezoning April 20, 2022 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lehendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg: My name is Tavia Brown, and my family and I live on River Vista Avenue. We have lived here for 17 years. We are concerned about the proposed planned development behind Mount View Baptist Church on St. Claire Avenue. I did attend the March 9th community zoom meeting. I have also signed a letter being presented to Shimp and the City Planner along with fellow neighbors. And, I would like to take this moment to write to you with our family’s additional concerns and questions. • The open space behind the church is the last bit of green space we have in our neighborhood (besides Northeast park) and one that many families and children of our neighborhood use. The central green space planned for the new development does not feel open to the neighborhood. It gives the feeling of only being an amenity to the new development. I don’t think as it is proposed - it would be utilized by the surrounding existing neighborhood. Nor does it seem nearly ample enough for the units that it plans to serve. • Some of the units back up awfully close to a few of the houses on River Vista, changing their atmosphere drastically. Namely 1210 and 1212, and affecting 1206 as well. Two of these homes are generational. Meaning, adult grandchildren own and live in the home their grandparents had built, and where they grew up. I would like to suggest the units behind these three homes be removed from the proposal and that space be added to the green space already in the plan. It would be a more ample amount of space for use, more available to the surrounding neighborhood and more integrated. If the church plans to establish a daycare on their property, having a larger green space would be advantageous for them as well and could be a positive for all involved. • Someone at a neighborhood meeting suggested allowing for the lower units nearest to 250 to have another level added to accommodate for the removal of the few units up top behind 1210 and 1212 River Vista. I think that could be a fair compromise. • There are very few units set for affordable housing, and they are not locked in to stay that way always. We have a general concern for what seems to be adding to the luxury condo overage we have in Charlottesville. Could there be another handful of units set aside for affordable housing? • River Vista is a narrow street with a lot of cars parked on the street only allowing for one car to pass at a time. We already have people who drive too fast on our narrow street. Traffic will be a problem with the increase of units. Please, please, do not have an entrance to the new development on River Vista. We ask that you please shift this entrance to travel through the Church parking lot. St. Clair is a wider street and flows better to Calhoun, Belleview and 250. The proposed entrance on River Vista could then be pedestrian only and add to green space. • The day care traffic will not flow as suggested. Those of us who live here all know that using the ramp to turn onto Locust during both rush hours is horrible. So, we use Belleview or Calhoun. This will be discovered by the families using the daycare and they, too, will start to use other areas of the neighborhood to avoid turning at the bridge. Please keep this in mind when you are considering the impact on the neighborhood. • With Landonia set to be open to travel the full loop of that street, can the plan include fixing and repairing of the far end of Landonia closest to the car wash? That would help with more options for traffic and flow. • Water will be a problem. We have a high water table in this area. In fact one of the city street storm water drains empties into the green space behind 2010 River Vista. This needs attention. Where will all this water go now with the removal of this green space, which, I assume has been a portion of our current storm water management. Our neighborhood is very concerned with the storm water management of this project. • It is unfortunate that these are all rental units, with no ability to own. Could a percentage of the units be set aside for sale? That would help support and encourage first time homeownership. My overall concern is how can this development be more advantageous to, and integrated with, the surrounding homes and neighborhood? It seems that keeping the zoning R-2 would do that. But, I understand growth, and I understand change. So, then, how can we make the suggested re-zoning and development plan more neighborly and holistically focused? Thank you for your time, Tavia Brown Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. FW: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Haluska, Brian Wed 4/20/2022 2:07 PM To: Rainey, Carrie Brian Haluska Principal Planner From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:05 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Theodore Last Name Diamond Contact Phone Number: 4344094462 Email Address: thd7t@hotmail.com Enter your message here City of Charlottesville Planning Commission April 20, 2022 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg: My name is Theodore Diamond and I live at 1021 St. Clair Avenue. I have been a home-owner here since 2009. I am writing to voice my strong support that you recommend to City Council the requested rezoning PUD for the Mout View Project for the following reasons: • The Mount View Site is in an ideal location for 60-72 units. This would provide housing close to the center of the city and adjacent to public transit. This density maximizes the opportunity of this site to serve the community. • Buildings at this location and scale will shield the neighborhood from noise from the bypass and will reintroduce opportunities to add traffic calming measures on Bellview Ave and Calhoun St. Drivers on these streets travel at dangerous speeds. Increasing neighborhood density will allow a reexamination of these streets. • The project’s provision for a daycare center would provide a critical, central service to the city. Daycare on site has the potential to reduce traffic in the neighborhood. • The inclusion of Required Affordable Dwelling Units is an improvement over the common payment to the Affordable Development fund and will provide immediate results at the cost of the developer, as the program should be run. As an Architect in the city, I believe that developments like these create an opportunity for our community to become more vibrant and inclusive. When combined with the Comprehensive Plan and similar measures, this could have a positive impact on both the Locust Grove Neighborhood and the city at large. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Theo Diamond, RA, LEED-AP Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Comments from Locust Grove Neighbors on Mount View PUD Proposed Rezoning As a group of Locust Grove neighbors, we have met to discuss the proposed rezoning. Many of us attended the March 9 community meeting, and we appreciate the information exchange from that meeting. We also acknowledge the critical need for housing in Charlottesville. We have diverse views about the proposal. However, the following represents several consensus comments that address how the proposed development is designed. As individual residents of the neighborhood, we may also be submitting our own comments independent of these consensus opinions. The consensus comments are as follows: 1. On-Site Stormwater Management We understand that it is common practice under current stormwater regulations for developments to purchase off-site credits to meet water quality requirements. Given our neighborhood’s proximity to, and strong relationship with, the Rivanna River, we are in favor of on-site treatment of stormwater. The Locust Grove neighborhood is bordered by the Rivanna as well as Meadow Creek and all the associated trails. These waterways already have impairments due to excessive stormwater, and we would like to see positive actions to protect these remarkable resources. The “typical” credits approach would allow the discharge of untreated stormwater into the Rivanna while benefits accrue to some distant nutrient bank. We are not in favor of that approach. 2. Flexibility of Use of the Existing Church Entrance and Parking Lot This issue was discussed at the community meeting, and there are really two sub-issues: (1) punching a new entrance onto River Vista instead of using the existing church entrance onto St. Clair, and (2) adding a lot of new asphalt to serve the proposed development while the existing parking lot sits empty on most days. We acknowledge that the church would like to reserve its existing parking lot for periodic events as well as possible future uses, and to ensure the safety of these uses. However, the existing layout protects the church’s interests to the maximum extent while shifting the burden of traffic to the neighborhood. The neighborhood has long-standing efforts working with the City to manage traffic, as, like many neighborhoods, we have issues with cut-through traffic, speeding, safety, and parking. River Vista, in particular, already has limited space and site distance issues at the proposed entrance location. The St. Clair location appears to be much safer and more functional. Can the development design accommodate its own parking needs, protect the interests of the church with regard to safety and event-hosting, and also respect neighborhood interests? We believe it can, but it will take a creative approach, possibly involving shared use of parking and shared green space. If such an approach were applied, the church would be able to hold safe events in a shared green space instead of on hot asphalt, and River Vista residents, and by extension surrounding neighborhood streets, would not have to unwillingly accept a decrease in the safety or our streets. This is important, as the trend in Locust Grove has been to younger families and many, many children, bikes, and pedestrians. In this regard, we are not asking the church to neglect its own needs, but to demonstrate some flexibility to also acknowledge ours. Specifically: Shifting ingress and egress to St. Clair, utilizing some of the existing church parking area, would: 1) allow additional green space in the area currently slated for the entrance from River Vista (which would also make a great sledding hill in the winter for the neighborhood’s children), lessening the need for green space in front of the units adjacent to it; 2) allow the housing units closest to that entrance to shift back into some of the area currently slated for green space, and away from the windows of the houses on River Vista; and 3) prevent both construction issues and eventual traffic issues on River Vista, a very narrow street where many houses do not have driveways. Creating a lawn in part of the existing church parking area could accommodate the church’s need for picnics and events without having participants endangered by parking cars, and could provide shared green space with the emerging and existing neighborhood. 3. Density, Landscape Buffer along River Vista This is another design issue. We have differing opinions on density, but acknowledge that some level of density is needed for the City to meet its housing needs. Some neighbors would like more density and others less. However, there is a design issue that has common agreement. As proposed, the new units at the north end of the site would be very close to existing homes, and could create an awkward juxtaposition with the ranch houses on River Vista. To the extent necessary to ease this transition, (and in keeping with our suggestion to include more green space near the north end of the site), there appears to be an option to include some density vertically instead of horizontally. The site slopes rather dramatically down to the southeast (towards Landonia). The slope may allow for the developer to increase building height on this part of the site, allowing for more of a buffer along the River Vista backyards. We like the notion of the buildings stepping down to lower heights as they abut existing residential homes, but that still provides opportunities for higher structures elsewhere on the site. 4. A Few Other Ideas Some others ideas generated at our neighborhood meeting include: ● Providing bike storage (covered) and EV stations to accommodate the modes of transportation encouraged by the City. ● Installing solar panels on the buildings – this would not only lessen the impact on the environment, but would lower the cost of living for tenants. ● The fallout shelter on the line between this project and the Bank of America remains a mystery to the neighborhood; any research and acknowledgment of this interesting historical site would be welcome. ● This is more an issue for the City than the developers, but our entire neighborhood could use a refresh on traffic calming techniques. There are likely more innovative and effective techniques than the stop signs and speed humps used in the past. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rezoning at Mount View Baptist Church. From: Kathryn Boudouris, 1221 River Vista Avenue Kristin and Joe Szakos, 1132 Otter Street David Hirschman & Garnett Mellen, 1107 Calhoun Street Myk Reid and Shannon Wright, 1105 Calhoun Street Aaron Feldman and Debbie Tuler, 1226 River Vista Avenue Lisa Draine, 962 Locust Avenue Elizabeth Hand, 907 Saint Clair Avenue Tavia Brown, 1205 River Vista Avenue John Hossack, 617 Davis Avenue Ashley Davies, 1000 Locust Avenue Beattie and Alison Sturgill, 1203 River Vista Avenue Lori Hanger and Donna Morris, 1220 Belleview Avenue Kennon Williams, 1013 St. Clair Avenue Diane and Tom Myers 1213 River Vista Ave Mount View Planned Unit Development Rezoning David Lyster Sat 4/16/2022 2:29 PM To: rainey@charlottesville.org ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Ms. Rainey: I have lived on Saint Clair Avenue across the street from Mount View Baptist Church for just over 20 years. I am opposed to the plan to rezone the property behind the Church making it into a PUD and my objections to the plan are as follows. 1. THERE WILL BE A DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND VALUES. 2. It is my understanding there are to be 72 living units. With full occupancy this could result in approximately 150 or more residents - children not included. 3. I have been advised monthly rent will be in the $1,500 range and there will be some Section 8 units available for those whose low income qualifies them. Will the site become known as low- income housing? 4. There are 72 vehicle parking spaces indicated on the plan. If a unit has renters with two vehicles, where is the second vehicle to be parked? Obviously, they will resort to on-street parking. River Vista Avenue is already jammed up with on-street parking, narrowing passage down to one-lane. The 900/1000 block of Saint Clair Avenue is not much better when everyone is home. A suggestion has been made that the excess vehicles could park in the church lot. Presumably, a connection between the site lot and the church lot will be created. This is unacceptable, as it would allow vehicular traffic easy access to Saint Clair Avenue to and from the development lot. Delivery services on Saint Clair are frequent and it would be easy access for them to cross the church's lot to make deliveries at the development site. The path of least resistance. 5. Plans indicate "landscape buffers" surrounding the site. I was advised that trees and shrubs will be dense enough to prevent trespassing onto adjacent properties. Trees and shrubs will not prevent pedestrian passage. 6. A new street will be opened up from the site onto River Vista Avenue. This is a terrible proposal and will cause even more congestion on River Vista which is already a tight squeeze. The same holds true for Saint Clair Avenue. THIS INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY IS A SERIOUS ASSAULT ON THE NEEDS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS. Again, I am opposed to this rezoning proposal, and I ask you, as Lead City Planner on this rezoning proposal, to forward my comments here to the members of the Charlottesville Planning Commission. Thank you. David Lyster Mount View Planned Urban Development Project I live at 1226 River Vista Avenue. We purchased this, our first purchased home, in 2001, just before our first child was born. I have signed the consensus letter from the Locust Grove Neighborhood Association but would like to add additional comments here. In particular, the LGNA consensus does not directly address the number or type of units proposed and Shimp Engineering was not very open at the March meeting about how many units of different sizes they propose to build. While I understand the desire for increased housing, I would like to see fewer units than proposed in the PUD. Fewer units overall would help mitigate stormwater, traffic, and environmental concerns. Fewer units would also enable the development to fit better within the surrounding neighborhood while still increasing the overall housing available in the City. In addition to the total number of units, I suggest both more units sized for families and a combination of rentals and units for purchase. The trend here is families that want to live in the City; and families need 3 bedrooms. In addition, homeownership is a pillar of community engagement and citizenship, because homeowners remain rooted in the community. Efficiency and one-bedroom rentals are more likely to have a lot of turnover. Units could be built with a larger one on the first floor, and then sizing down on the second and third floors. Such tall units could be at the lower end of the hill so as not to obstruct or hang over the ranch houses on River Vista. And the units could be a mix of rentals and owned. Another concern the LGNA consensus letter does not address is affordability. Shimp representatives talked about having 7 “affordable” units, but they included efficiencies in that number because “$1200 is affordable”. That is not true affordability for low and moderate- income people. In addition, I have heard that the requirement for affordable units is only for 5 years and after that rents can be increased – so this project does NOT increase affordable housing in Charlottesville, which we desperately need. This project is an opportunity for City Council to manage how the city is developed instead of letting developers make decisions that do not benefit residents long term. Thank you for your consideration, Debbie Tuler 1226 River Vista Avenue FW: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Creasy, Missy Thu 4/21/2022 2:48 PM To: Rainey, Carrie From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:45 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Faye Last Name Rosenthal Contact Phone Number: 540-967-7351 Email Address: fayerosenthal@hotmail.com Enter your message here April 21, 2022 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg: My name is Faye Rosenthal. I live at 1213 Belleview Avenue, Charlottesville. I request that you recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied. It is not good for our neighborhood and not good for Charlottesville. The Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. This is the maximum housing density allowed if the land is rezoned to PUD and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R2 zoning already allows 1-2 units per lot, which, if this property were re-parceled, could yield up to 30 new units. This density is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. The Project does not provide storm water management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% on site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the regions doesn’t keep the Rivanna River clean. The Project includes the creation of a new street which would connect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking and incomplete sidewalks. This proposed entrance would be very dangerous. The Project does not alter the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Saint Clair Avenue. This exit ramp is already insufficient for handling vehicles turning from a congested bypass. The Project’s provision for a daycare center in the church would further increase traffic, especially at peak times, and it would also create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and on bicycles. The Project includes only seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12% of the proposed units. All seven are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. The Project does not help with affordable housing in Charlottesville. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Faye Rosenthal Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Cty of Charkottesville Planning Comm ssion Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, ahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russel, Sola-"ates, and Stolzenberg My nameis Sel u Iiwe st6 Calhaun_i Ihave been living here sincealyol9 Please reccmmend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PLD fcr the Mount View Project be denied for the following reascrs: T h e Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. This is the maximum housing density al owed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding ne ghborhood. The existing R2 zoring already allows 1-2 units per lot, which. if this property were re- parceled, cculd yield 30 new urits. Th s censity is consistent with the neghborhood and in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. T h e Project does not provide storm watcr management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% un site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn't keep the Rivanna River clean. The Project includes the creation of a new street which would cornnect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking ard incomp ete sidewclks. I oppose this dangerous entrance. T h e Proect does not alrer the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto landonia Cirele or the 250 Bypass exit ramo onto Saint Cair Avenuc. These exit ramgs ore already insuficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypas, Irequest that ooth rernps bz Expanded to accommodate the anticipated increase in trafic. The Projecr's provision for a daycare center in the church would further inureese t'ef+is, especielly at peak times, and it would alsc create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles, I request tha: intense turafic calming measures be implemented throughout :he neighborhood; above all,Irequest speed humps to be installed on Sant Ciair Avenue in front of the church. T h e Project includes only seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12 percent of the proposed units. Al sever are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. Mid-range housing is stil very expensive for the people in Charlottesville for whor affordable housing Is diffcult to find. Irecognize that the requests I am making to change the Project cost money, and that an attemg: may be made to pass those costs on to the renter in the ferm of higher rates. loppose that attempt and request that in no way the renter be further burdened economically. Charlotesville does not need more luxury condos Thenk you for your consideration. Sincerelv. Commission City of Charlottesville Planning Date: /92 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg: My name islelenss l e r I Ilive at /4AZALLLau u e Ihave been living here since 4 5 - 7 yna Please recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied for the following reasons: The Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. This is the maximum housing density allowed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R2 zoning already allows 1-2 units per lot, which, if this property were re-parceled, could yield 30 new units. This density is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. The Project does not provide storm water management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% on site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn't keep the Rivanna River clean. The Project includes the creation of a new street which would connect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking and incomplete sidewalks. Ioppose this dangerous entrance. The Project does not alter the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Landonia Circle or the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Saint Clair Avenue. These exit ramps are already insufficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypass. I request that both ramps be expanded to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. The Project's provision for a daycare center in the church would further increase traffic, especially at peak times, and it would also create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles. I request that intense traffic calming measures be implemented rough ut the neighborhood; above all, I request speed humps to be installed on Saint Clair Avenue in front of the church. The Project includes onily seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12 percent of the proposed units. All seven are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. Mid-range housing is still very expensive for the people in Charlottesville for whom affordable housing is difficult to find. I recognize that the requestsI am making to change the Project cost money, and that an attempt may be made to pass those costs on to the renter in the form of higher rates. Ioppose that attempt and request that in no way the renter be further burdened economically. Charlottesville does not need more luxury condos. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ViTawa Po Cty of Charkottesville Planning Comm ssion Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, ahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russel, Sola-"ates, and Stolzenberg My nameis Sel u Iiwe st6 Calhaun_i Ihave been living here sincealyol9 Please reccmmend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PLD fcr the Mount View Project be denied for the following reascrs: T h e Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. This is the maximum housing density al owed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding ne ghborhood. The existing R2 zoring already allows 1-2 units per lot, which. if this property were re- parceled, cculd yield 30 new urits. Th s censity is consistent with the neghborhood and in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. T h e Project does not provide storm watcr management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% un site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn't keep the Rivanna River clean. The Project includes the creation of a new street which would cornnect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking ard incomp ete sidewclks. I oppose this dangerous entrance. T h e Proect does not alrer the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto landonia Cirele or the 250 Bypass exit ramo onto Saint Cair Avenuc. These exit ramgs ore already insuficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypas, Irequest that ooth rernps bz Expanded to accommodate the anticipated increase in trafic. The Projecr's provision for a daycare center in the church would further inureese t'ef+is, especielly at peak times, and it would alsc create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles, I request tha: intense turafic calming measures be implemented throughout :he neighborhood; above all,Irequest speed humps to be installed on Sant Ciair Avenue in front of the church. T h e Project includes only seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12 percent of the proposed units. Al sever are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. Mid-range housing is stil very expensive for the people in Charlottesville for whor affordable housing Is diffcult to find. Irecognize that the requests I am making to change the Project cost money, and that an attemg: may be made to pass those costs on to the renter in the ferm of higher rates. loppose that attempt and request that in no way the renter be further burdened economically. Charlotesville does not need more luxury condos Thenk you for your consideration. Sincerelv. FW: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Creasy, Missy Fri 4/22/2022 1:31 PM To: Rainey, Carrie From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 1:24 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Heidi Dhivya Last Name Berthoud Contact Phone Number: 4349799732 Email Address: heidi1008@gmail.com Enter your message here City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Date: 4/21/22 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, Stolzenberg and City Planner Rainey: My name is Heidi Dhivya Berthoud. I live at 1206 River Vista Ave. I have been living here since 2013. Please recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied for the following reasons: • The Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. This is the maximum housing density allowed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R2 zoning already allows 1-2 units per lot, which, if this property were re-parceled, could yield 30 new units. This density is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City’s Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. • The Project does not provide storm water management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% on site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn’t keep the Rivanna River clean. Has the city upgraded storm water management requirements respecting the climate crisis with the increased severe weather events? • The Project does not alter the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Landonia Circle or the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Saint Clair Avenue. These exit ramps are already insufficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypass. More than that – they are already dangerous – especially the East Bound street called Watson Ave, which faces oncoming fast moving traffic exiting from 250 around a blind curve. There would need to be both an exit & entrance lane for traffic to access the project from 250, maybe even a traffic light. The taxpayers would fund all of this – right? • The Project includes the creation of a new street, which would connect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking and incomplete sidewalks. And children playing and many cats. I oppose this dangerous entrance. • Opening up Landonia Circle & connecting traffic to Coleman St will increase traffic on that road looking to avoid the traffic jams heading south on River Rd to the light at Rt 250. These are small roads, with lots of parked cars, and again, children and many cats. • The Project’s provision for a daycare center in the church would further increase traffic, especially at peak times, and it would also create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles. I would request that intense traffic calming measures be implemented throughout the neighborhood; above all, I would request speed humps to be installed on Saint Clair Avenue in front of the church. Again – the concern of the junction of Watson & St Clair – very dangerous with exiting, very fast moving traffic from Rt 250 around a blind curve. • My heart aches for the deer and the fox who manage to make their homes in this green acreage. They were here first. What of the large trees in Block 2 – would they be spared? Its not clear to me from the plans. • Charlottesville does not need more luxury condos. What are the true needs of the people of Cville? Not the developers – the common good. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Heidi Dhivya Berthoud Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Mt View jim allen Tue 3/8/2022 9:58 AM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** I used to own the house at 922 St Clair Ave that adjoins this property. This proposal is awful. It would destroy property values and the feel of the area at that end of the neighborhood. The zoning in place should be left alone and protected. James Allen City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Statement by John Hossack, Davis Ave, 22 years on this location. Please recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied for the following reasons: • The existing zoning is R-2 and the 2021 Comp Plan calls for “General Residential”. Residents in the neighborhood have a reasonable expectation that the zoning around them is stable. If zoning is not stable, then zoning means nothing. Ad hoc upzoning will destabilize the market and while that may be the intent of the planning commission and the city council, it is contrary to the interests of long-term residents to whom the planning commission and council ought to owe some loyalty by way of their decades long engagement in the community. While it is fashionable to look at recent valuation hikes, many valuations in this part of the city more closely match general inflation and this action is also particularly contrary to interests of recent incomers who wonder why they bought into the instability of the city residential market when the adjacent county market is far more stable. • Upzoning to PUD in this setting undermines the need for “Medium Intensity Residential”. If you upzone in GR such as proposed here, it creates a question as to whether the classifications in the new Comp Plan mean anything. It also undermines the entire basis of any and all proposed upzoning currently underway. • The architecture is demonstrably inconsistent with adjacent established homes. It is up to 35’ tall and lacks the qualities of adjacent buildings – e.g. bricks. • The parking allocation is woefully inadequate. Approximately one space is allowed per residence. Spillover parking will occur on adjacent overloaded streets. Where is this accounted for? • It is problematic that the church has its parking spaces empty approximately 164 hours a week while adjacent streets absorb parking and traffic. It would inconvenience the church so very little relative to the overall impact of this project to require shared access to church parking and vehicle access via the church property and via St Clair in addition to one or other of the other proposed entrances. • Stormwater should be handled on site and not via payment in lieu. Rain water flows rapidly to the Rivanna via steep slope. • It isn’t credible to have the developer write his own traffic impact study. Too conflicted to do this job properly and little evidence that city staff have the time to properly vet. Meanwhile, the existing residents will take the burden. • Landonia access from 250 grossly inadequate. It should be closed or improved. • 250 and adjacent streets are chronically overloaded in peak hours. The planning commission and the council would be wiser to get their long term and medium term transport plan in order. Instead, they allow the adjacent county to trample all over this neighborhood by their consistent inaction – see for example the county developing their “Rio Corridor” that mainly terminates on to city residential streets, their preoccupation with widening 250 outside the city limits ignoring damage done inside city limits while not providing their promised “Eastern Connector”. Ongoing dangerous conditions undermine the focus on pedestrian and bicycle transport. I would know since I have been nearly killed three times bicycling in this city and in every case by the actions of the driver and not by my riding position (in lane, out of lane, no lane etc.) Mount View Church Development Josh Krahn Fri 4/22/2022 4:18 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Ms. Rainey, I am writing in support of the proposed new housing development on the grounds of Mount View Church on St. Clair Ave. My family and I have lived in the Locust Grove neighborhood for 14 years and we look forward to greater density and more projects like this in our neighborhood. This kind of development will bring more diverse housing options to Locust Grove, and should help us become a more vibrant, walkable, and bikable part of the city.. Thank you, Josh Krahn North Ave. 3/18/22, 10:05 AM Mail - Rainey, Carrie - Outlook Mount View Planned Unit Development Question Kim Lilley Thu 3/17/2022 2:06 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Carrie, I see that this PUD will have an entrance on 250 via Landonia Circle. Our property, Riverview Center (Papa Johns, etc) is bounded on one side by the street. I would like to know if there have been any studies about whether this small road can handle a very sharp increase in traffic? Seventy-five homes means as much as 150 cars. I can see that most residents of this PUD will prefer this exit as it doesn’t go through a residential neighborhood, and that it gets them on 250 quickly. I’m wondering about the safety on 250 there without a traffic light too. Also whether Landonia would be labeled “no parking”. Shemp has a reputation for not providing adequate parking in his communities, so there will definitely be spillout into the neighborhoods. In fact, I imagine we will have to manage our own commercial parking for the spillover. I would appreciate your information on these issues. Sincerely, Kim Kimberly Cosner Lilley Manager/Member KIMCO LC 1510 E. High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Contact: Kim Lilley kim@lilleymarketing.com 434-422-0223 phone and text Licensed Real Estate Agent in Virginia, Core Real Estate https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADJhMTRmM2Q3LTFiODUtNDM5ZC05NWJiLTcyODdhMjBjMGVkMwAQAEDaqe48cEqXlN61UD9M… 1/1 Mount View PUD kszakos Wed 4/20/2022 6:04 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi, Carrie. I’m writing to support the project to build housing in the lot(s) beside my house, behind Mount View Baptist Church. I am a signatory to a letter from neighbors to the city about this project, and support all its positions as well. We would love to see some on-site rainwater management, since it is so close to - and uphill from - our beloved Rivanna River. We would also like to see the main entrance come through Mt. View Baptist Church property off St. Clair Ave. rather than through the gap in houses on River Vista. Generally, though I believe this is a great place for the kind of housing proposed, and look forward to having new neighbors here in a couple years. Please keep me posted about hearing decisions on this project. Thanks! - Kristin Kristin Szakos Kszakos@gmail.com 434-987-1042 Mountain View Church Rezoning matthew gillikin Thu 4/21/2022 6:03 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Carrie, I am writing in favor of the Mountain View Church site PUD rezoning. This type of development, with smaller units and some guaranteed affordable units, is what our city needs. It is consistent with our stated goals to build more types of housing across income levels. I have heard from multiple people in the neighborhood that they welcome new neighbors and support this new housing. I share that feeling as well. Thank you Matthew Gillikin Charlottesville, VA Proposed development in Locust Grove Myk R Wed 4/20/2022 2:11 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good afternoon Carrie, I am writing to (separately) offer my support for the development behind the Mount View church on St Clair avenue. I am also a signatory on the document sent from the LGNA via Dave Hirschman. I concur with all of the design element changes on that document, but wanted to add that I believe strongly that the church and developer should NOT be let out of the affordable housing requirement after 10years, if in fact that is the case. I believe that there should be MORE affordable units added/required should this development be allowed to move forward. I strongly feel that affordable housing should be a part of our city’s efforts moving forward and that we should hold developers accountable for adding more affordable units, in perpetuity, not just for X number of years. Please mark me down as IN FAVOR of the development. Don’t listen to all the “NIMBY’s” who are not in favor because of increased traffic. They live in a downtown part of a city; there is going to be traffic. Also, I want to reiterate that the storm water should 100% be managed on site at the development. Thanks for your efforts in dealing with the public. With kind regards, Myk Reid 1105 Calhoun St, Charlottesville, VA 22901 FW: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Creasy, Missy Mon 4/25/2022 8:05 AM To: Rainey, Carrie From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 7:28 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Online Form Submittal: Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Email Contact Form for Planning Commission Please complete the online form below to submit your message. Contact Information First Name Nina Last Name O'Malley Contact Phone Number: 7036257696 Email Address: ninaomalley@gmail.com Enter your message here City of Charlottesville Planning Commission Date 4/22/2022 Dear Planning Commissioners Dowell, Habbab, Lahendro, Mitchell, Palmer, Russell, Solla-Yates, and Stolzenberg; My name is Nina O'Malley. I live at 910 Martin St, Charlottesville VA 22901.I have been living here since 2017. Please recommend to City Council that the requested rezoning to PUD for the Mount View Project be denied for the following reasons: • The Project provides for the construction of 60 housing units with the possibility of 12 more. • This is the maximum housing density allowed if the land is rezoned to PUD, and it is several times higher than that of the surrounding neighborhood. The existing R2 zoning already allows 1-2 units per lot, which, if this property were re-parceled, could yield 30 new units. This density is consistent with the neighborhood and in keeping with the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide more housing. • The Project does not provide storm water management on the site. Storm water on this property should be managed 100% on site. Buying credits to manage storm water in other parts of the region doesn't keep the Rivanna River clean, • The Project includes the creation of a new street which would connect the development to River Vista Avenue. River Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with crowded parking and incomplete sidewalks. I oppose this dangerous entrance. • The Project does not alter the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Landonia Circle or the 250 Bypass exit ramp onto Saint Clair Avenue. These exit ramps are already insufficient in handling turning vehicles on a congested bypass. I request that both ramps be expanded to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. • The Project's provision for a daycare center in the church would further increase traffic, especially at peak times, and it would also create a steady presence of children on foot and as passengers in cars and bicycles. I request that intense traffic calming measures be implemented throughout the neighborhood; above all, I request speed humps to be installed on Saint Uair Avenue in front of the church. • The Project includes only seven Required Affordable Dwelling Units, which is less than 12 . percent of the proposed units. All seven are allowed to convert to market value rent after ten years. Mid-range housing is still very expensive for the people in Charlottesville for whom affordable housing is difficult to find. I recognize that the requests I am making to change the Project cost money, and that an attempt may be made to pass those costs on to the renter in the form of higher rates. I oppose that attempt and request that in no way the renter be further burdened economically. Charlottesville does not need more luxury condos. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nina O'Malley Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. FW: Support for Mountain View rezoning Creasy, Missy Fri 4/22/2022 9:00 AM To: Rainey, Carrie From: Pamela R. Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 8:29 AM To: Creasy, Missy Subject: Support for Mountain View rezoning ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good Morning, Apologies for sending this to you if you are not the right person. Could you kindly pass along my support to the appropriate person regarding the rezoning of Mountain View Baptist Church? Thank you very much, Pamela Rosen Dear Ms. Rainey, I live at 1207 Belleview Ave., one block from the proposed rezoning. I am writing to express my support for this project on the grounds that it adds critical and much needed housing to our city at a scale and density that I feel is appropriate for an urban infill project. There are few remaining sites like this in the city, and a development with by right R2 density would be a lost opportunity for our community. I would strongly prefer to see the developer include a minimum of 15% affordable units with an affordability term that is longer than 10 years if possible. The need for affordable housing is critical and this is an opportunity to support some of that demand. This is already a vibrant neighborhood with a wide diversity of housing, as such the proposed development would fit right in. Thanks for your time and your service to our city, Pamela Rosen 1207 Belleview Avenue Re: Mount View PUD Proposed Rezoning Tavia Brown Wed 4/20/2022 9:40 PM To: kelsey@shimp-engineering.com ;Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Re: Mount View PUD Proposed Rezoning April 20, 2022 Dear Ms. Schlein and Ms, Rainey, My name is Tavia Brown, and my family and I live on River Vista Avenue. We have lived here for 17 years. We are concerned about the proposed planned development behind Mount View Baptist Church on St. Claire Avenue. I did attend the March 9th community zoom meeting. I have also signed a letter being presented to you along with fellow neighbors. And, I would like to take this moment to write to you with our family’s additional concerns and questions. The open space behind the church is the last bit of green space we have in our neighborhood (besides Northeast park) and one that many families and children of our neighborhood use. The central green space planned for the new development does not feel open to the neighborhood. It gives the feeling of only being an amenity to the new development. I don’t think as it is proposed - it would be utilized by the surrounding existing neighborhood. Nor does it seem nearly ample enough for the units that it plans to serve. Some of the units back up awfully close to a few of the houses on River Vista, changing their atmosphere drastically. Namely 1210 and 1212, and affecting 1206 as well. Two of these homes are generational. Meaning, adult grandchildren own and live in the home their grandparents had built, and where they grew up. I would like to suggest the units behind these three homes be removed from the proposal and that space be added to the green space already in the plan. It would be a more ample amount of space for use, more available to the surrounding neighborhood and more integrated. If the church plans to establish a daycare on their property, having a larger green space would be advantageous for them as well and could be a positive for all involved. Someone at a neighborhood meeting suggested allowing for the lower units nearest to 250 to have another level added to accommodate for the removal of the few units up top behind 1210 and 1212 River Vista. I think that could be a fair compromise. There are very few units set for affordable housing, and they are not locked in to stay that way always. We have a general concern for what seems to be adding to the luxury condo overage we have in Charlottesville. Could there be another handful of units set aside for affordable housing? River Vista is a narrow street with a lot of cars parked on the street only allowing for one car to pass at a time. We already have people who drive too fast on our narrow street. Traffic will be a problem with the increase of units. Please, please, do not have an entrance to the new development on River Vista. We ask that you please shift this entrance to travel through the Church parking lot. St. Clair is a wider street and flows better to Calhoun, Belleview and 250. The proposed entrance on River Vista could then be pedestrian only and add to green space. The day care traffic will not flow as suggested. Those of us who live here all know that using the ramp to turn onto Locust during both rush hours is horrible. So, we use Belleview or Calhoun. This will be discovered by the families using the daycare and they, too, will start to use other areas of the neighborhood to avoid turning at the bridge. Please keep this in mind when you are considering the impact on the neighborhood. With Landonia set to be open to travel the full loop of that street, can the plan include fixing and repairing of the far end of Landonia closest to the car wash? That would help with more options for traffic and flow. Water will be a problem. We have a high water table in this area. In fact one of the city street storm water drains empties into the green space behind 2010 River Vista. This needs attention. Where will all this water go now with the removal of this green space, which, I assume has been a portion of our current storm water management. Our neighborhood is very concerned with the storm water management of this project. It is unfortunate that these are all rental units, with no ability to own. Could a percentage of the units be set aside for sale? That would help support and encourage first time homeownership. My overall concern is how can this development be more advantageous to, and integrated with, the surrounding homes and neighborhood? It seems that keeping the zoning R-2 would do that. But, I understand growth, and I understand change. So, then, how can we make the suggested re-zoning and development plan more neighborly and holistically focused? Thank you for your time, Tavia Brown Tavia Brown tavia@taviametal.com 434.466.4042 Planned Unit Development at Mount View Baptist Church William Jolly Thu 4/21/2022 12:24 PM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Traffic Flow -- The plan shows a through street to River Vista Avenue. This will increase traffic on our street and sight lines are not adequate at that future intersection. In fact, several intersections in our neighborhood are hazardous. It appears that Landonia Circle will be unblocked which leads to unimproved section down to the car wash. Parking -- Only one parking space is planned for each unit which implies that overflow parking will be on River Vista. Pedestrians -- The plan shows sidewalks ending at River Vista but then are incomplete at River Vista placing pedestrians on the street. Affordability -- How many units will be affordable? I understand that development is inevitable but when it happens, the quality of life for all in the neighborhoodshould be improved. Comment on Rezoning Application ZM22-00002 Dylan Fraser Thu 9/1/2022 10:26 AM To: Rainey, Carrie ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good Morning Carrie Rainey, My name is Dylan Fraser and I'm a resident at 1225 Belleview Ave in town and I have a concern about the notice for rezoning for 22 new dwelling units located by Mount View Baptist Church. This proposed development will have frontage on St. Clair Avenue, Otter Street, Landonia Circle, and River Vista Avenue. My concern is related to increased traffic on already congested residential streets where through traffic regularly speed and cause accidents. Our neighborhood and specifically Belleview Avenue is used by vehicles as a cut through to Park Street to avoid traffic congestion on route 250. Our street consists of narrow lots with a combination of off-street and on-street parking even though the road is much narrower than other city streets. New development will bring increased traffic to our street and the streets listed above. Has a traffic analysis been performed as part of the up front due diligence for this proposed development and what mitigation measures are being considered as a result? Will speed bumps, one-way street designations, or other improvements be implemented? If the traffic analysis does not have any proposed mitigation measures for increased traffic I strongly request that Shimp Engineering and the General Contractor be required to provide post-construction traffic monitoring over a few weeks to confirm that the assumptions of the pre-construction traffic analysis were correct and don't need to be modified. thank you very much, -Dylan Mount View PUD Rezoning David Lyster Sat 9/3/2022 2:55 PM To: Rainey, Carrie Cc: Elizabeth Hand ;janicemball1@gmail.com ;hazelm@embarqmail.com ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Carrie, This is an amendment to my letter of April 16, 2022 objecting to the rezoning of the Mount View Church property. Since that time, an apartment complex known as The Hudson has opened its doors to renters at the intersection of Belleview Avenue and River Road, and as was predictable, parking has overflowed from the apartment lot onto Belleview Avenue. Cars are now parked on Belleview Avenue, bumper to bumper, from Coleman Street and down the hill to River Road. This never occurred before. This section of Belleview Avenue has new signage limiting parking to two hours between 8:30 a. m. and 5:30 p. m. I drive this section of Belleview Avenue two to three times a day and the same cars are parked there, all day long, not paying any attention to the two-hour limit. There is no longer a free flow of traffic in this area. It has become stop and go to allow oncoming traffic to squeeze past you. I observe customers and delivery trucks at the vehicle repair shops on Belleview across from The Hudson having a difficult time finding off-street room to go about their business. I drove through there today, a Saturday afternoon, and the street was completely blocked even though no parking signs are posted. It would not have been passable for Fire or Medics. It's just too narrow. My point here is that the same parking/traffic disruption situation is going to occur on the quiet residential areas of Saint Claire Avenue, River Vista Avenue and Otter Street if the Mount View Rezoning is approved and that massive three-story, three-unit complex is built. It is unrealistic to believe there will be only one vehicle per each residential unit. Carrie, thanks for passing this on to Council and Planning Commission members. David Lyster - 434-977-5572 Planning Commission Work Session August 31, 2021 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM Virtual Meeting Members Present: Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Palmer, Commissioner Russell, Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Solla-Yates. Commissioner Dowell, Commissioner Habbab Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Missy Creasy, Alex Ikefuna, Joe Rice, Lisa Robertson, Matt Alfele The Chairman called the work session to order at 5:51 PM The Work Session was delayed due to a technical issue with Zoom. 1. May, 2021 to June, 2021 Public Engagement Jennifer Koch, Cville Plans Together – From May 3rd to June 13th, we received community feedback on the draft comprehensive plan including chapters and the future land use map. We had over 2300 interactions. Those included emails, wiki-map comments, and survey form submissions. We have summarized that input in a summary document that is posted on the website that we sent out via email. That includes a summary of all of the survey information. The last time we spoke with you on the 29th, we provided you a summary of what we had heard at that point. Given the short amount of time between when the engagement period ended and when we met with you, there were a few updates. Generally, the themes stayed the same. We also posted a response to frequently asked questions (FAQ document). If you go to the website, you will see a link to that document. We won’t go through all of the feedback we received. Once we get to the chapter piece and the future land use map, I will briefly summarize what we heard about each of those components. Since we have already spoken with you about community feedback, we won’t focus on that tonight. We met with you on August 10th to review the timeline for the next steps for the rest of the comprehensive plan. This graphic is just the graphic representation of the timeline we talked about. It includes an October 12th Planning Commission hearing with Council and a Council hearing in November. We’re also scheduled to meet with you in a couple of weeks from today to discuss the chapters; particularly the implementation chapter but also to gather your feedback on the other chapters. We have set aside September 21st as a potential additional work session. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1U6qwwT1p9S9o6P1ketdiP7Ba3LBgWdUH 2. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Chapter Revisions Ms. Koch – The first thing I want to talk about is the chapter. We’re not going through all of the detailed chapter revisions tonight. We want to go through some of the highlights. There are seven topic- specific chapters in the comprehensive plan. There’s also going to be an implementation chapter. The chapter we’re talking about tonight is the Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Chapter. We’re going to think about how all of those pieces are balanced. This is an important part of this chapter. The reason we’re really focusing on this chapter is that I want to make it clear that the land use map we’re going to be talking about does not sit on its own in the plan. The land use map is connected to a variety of, not only goals and strategies, but also the overall chapter vision statement about what Charlottesville wants to be in the future related to the land use, urban form, and historic & 1 cultural preservation. There will be details about supporting implementation of the future land use map that are described in the chapter. That will be reviewed with you as you move forward. (Next Slide) This slide shows some of the feedback that we received related to the land use chapter. In the table on the left, you can see some themes from the survey. On the right, you can see the themes from emails, the wiki-map, and the other ways we received input. We reviewed this with you when we met with you on June 29th. This has evolved slightly. The themes have stayed the same. If you look at the survey, the majority of respondents were people who live in neighborhoods that are currently mostly single-family neighborhoods. There was a lot of expression of concern related to community character, development, and scale. I want to note that there were a lot of comments in support of more housing, affordability, and density in the city in the survey. We heard a lot of different comments across the board. Some of the top comments are providing context sensitive planning and the city commitment to enhanced multi-modal infrastructure. That is a big one we heard a lot about from a lot of people. People want the city to commit to having improved infrastructure for walking, biking, transit, and getting around town without necessarily having to use a car. You can see the variety of topics we were looking to consider as we moved forward with revisions to the plan. (Next Slide) I have listed on this slide some of the revisions that we’re finalizing. They’re in three categories: Clarifications (where we’re refining information), Additions, and Other. Some of the major things we wanted to clarify in the chapter were how the strategies and goals connect and support the future land use map. There were connections to the map throughout the chapter. We also wanted to tie the affordable housing plan and the future land use map together. That happens in this chapter and in the housing chapter. We also clarified the emphasis on some of those principles of design that improve walkability, connectivity, and livability in the city. It is important to us that that comes along with additional development. It is important to the community. In terms of additions, we have mostly been discussing the future land use map in separate documents. That will “live” in the chapter. We will create a section introducing the map in the chapter; having the category descriptions in there. We have also added a discussion of an urban development area. We have added some potential new small area plan locations. We have worked with city staff to make updates to the narrative and appendix that goes with this chapter. It includes descriptions of historic resource processes and design control districts. All of these pieces that are very detailed with that play a big role in implementation of the future land use map. These are some of big updates. There are updates throughout the chapter. The next time you see a version of the chapter, it will be redlined so you can clearly identify where changes have been made. (Next Slide) – Future Land Use Map This is the draft map we shared in May of this year. We received comments in that comment period through June 13th. Our goal with this was to support the overall community goals of more housing opportunities throughout the city on a variety of scales to support the affordable housing plan. That’s looking at multi-family opportunities on a variety of scales. One of those major changes that we discussed was changes to the base residential land use. In May, you can see the light yellow (General Residential), allowing up to three units on those sites. A lot of those right now are currently zoned for single-family use only. That represented a potential tripling of what was allowed in those areas. There are two other residential focused land use areas shown. The ten areas that you can see along the corridors and in some nodes around the city/main amenities such as schools and parks are medium intensity residential uses. In June, we were talking about those allowing 4 to 12 units. It represents a 2 departure from what is allowed in most of those areas. The other residential category we were discussing was the higher intensity residential, which is that darker brown land use. Looking at some of the other land uses we were talking about, there is neighborhood and urban scale mixed-use nodes and corridors. Those are the pinks and purples that you see on this map. The intention with these was to provide opportunities for additional housing at a higher intensity and also allowing for commercial uses or resale a wide variety of different types of uses throughout the city. Those are not the only areas where commercial uses would be allowed. The May draft did propose including some opportunities for retail and commercial throughout the city in all of the residential areas. The idea was that zoning ordinance would define where that might be most appropriate. That was the vision. In addition, the dark red is the downtown core, which is a mixed use area. The purple-pink color represent the Business and Technology areas that are also mixed use with potential additional residential uses where feasible. They do allow for continuation of some of those uses that might be there right now. When we’re talking about nodes and corridors in the city, we do have those land use categories that are called mixed use nodes/mixed use corridors. When we talk about having a development pattern that is node and corridor centric, we’re also looking at things like residential corridors and nodes of residential intensity. In developing this map, we did take the node corridor approach to this, which is something we have talked about throughout this process. Along with that node and corridor process, we looked at how we can put potential intensity near schools and near parks. That has been important from the beginning of this process. This was the May version of the map that we shared with the community. (Next Slide) We talked a bit about feedback we received at that time. I think it is important to note that of those comments we received, the vast majority of comments we received supported additional housing and affordability in the city. There was not always agreement with how to get there. There was seemingly widespread agreement on the topic in general. We also have listed here (in the blue box on the left) some of the general ideas that came about the feedback. Some of the top comments we received were assuring displacement protection for black and low-income residents, considering areas for additional infill development in currently single-family areas, focusing on homeownership opportunities as well as deeply affordable housing, and considering up to 4 or 5 units in the general residential category. In no way does this represent everything we heard. Those are some of the main themes we saw come up in many different places. In terms of the concerns we heard, you heard some of them in the chapter discussion. When people reacted to the chapter, they were reacting to the future land use map. We heard concerns about locations of medium intensity residential and mixed use nodes. We heard concerns about the city’s ability to plan for infrastructure in advance of development. That includes traffic, transportation, utilities, storm water, and other types of infrastructure. We have also talked about character. There were concerns about student housing in terms of building additional housing and whether it will be only students that live there. One thing we noted in the FAQ is that students are an important part of Charlottesville. They often become long-term residents. It is important for us to see how the University impact on affordability for the other residents in the city. One of the major themes we heard in terms of the questions listed on this slide was concerns about how this map supports affordability. We heard a lot of people who said that density does not equal affordability. We agree with that. The land use map alone will not get to the housing goals that we have for Charlottesville. (Next Slide) It was mentioned in the community feedback. I want to talk briefly about another piece of feedback we received. The Housing Advisory Committee discussed a future land use alternative framework that you see here. We have spoken with members of the HAC to make sure we understood what was being proposed. We have considered it. We will talk more about how we have reacted to it. I want to go 3 through some of the major things we heard. There was a call to potentially establish low-intensity general residential as a land use category to help protect those historically black and low-income neighborhoods that we heard there was a community concern about. You can see those highlighted here as orange on the map. There was an idea to maintain general residential uses outside of those as a base residential and allow for additional density anywhere in the city if it met certain affordability requirements: allowing for medium-intensity or high-intensity residential if it met affordability requirements. It also called for the defining of affordability thresholds. There is additional information that comes with the framework. (Next Slide) – Draft Future Land Use Map: Proposed Revisions This is the August, 2021 version of the map. One important note that was called to my attention is that we have a discussion identifying some sensitive community areas on the map. They’re not shown on this map. When you see those in later slides, please recognize that our intention is that wherever those may end up; if they end up being in the document, they will be a part of the future land use map. There will be a layer on the map. There are some major highlights of changes that I want to highlight here. In a couple of more slides, we have more detailed information about changes that were made. In terms of map areas, you can see how this generally follows the same pattern in the previous version. We have made several adjustments. Starting with this mixed use area, we have reviewed the location of the mostly pink neighborhood scale nodes and corridors. In several cases, we have pulled back on those. Part of the reason why we did that was that level of mixed use we were thinking in that area, in some ways, can be achieved through the medium intensity residential. That medium intensity (tan) color allows and will encourage in certain locations incorporation of neighborhood scale, retail, and commercial. It does remove some potential for higher intensity at those locations. We have heard a lot of comments pushing back against those. One of the main themes of those comments was, not only concerns about height, that the Rt. 29 corridor is a large node in of itself on the map. That represents a great opportunity for a variety of uses, including commercial uses and infill residential at a fairly intense scale. There are two spots where we made more major changes to the medium intensity residential. One is in Belmont. We heard a call from many residents of Belmont to look at Belmont as an opportunity to increase medium intensity residential. We have considered that. In our March draft of the map, we had included Avon Street as a medium intensity corridor. We have edited that back. We believe that is a direct route to downtown. It makes a lot of sense. We’ve also added the Elliott Avenue corridor as a residential corridor. We’ve made some adjustments in North Downtown. Part of those adjustments were made to reflect the corridor concept that we are putting forth. Part of the reason for that is that can really better prioritize areas for these bicycle/pedestrian and other multi-modal improvements that we think are really important to get people around town safely. The only place we reduced medium-intensity residential is in Lewis Mountain. That’s a fairly significant change. We have reduced it from much of Lewis Mountain to Alderman Road. One of the main reasons for that is similar to North Downtown where we wanted to make it clearer and take a more corridor approach to that. Particularly in Lewis Mountain, but throughout the city, there are parcels that are quite large. There are opportunities where people might want to subdivide parcels. There are opportunities here to provide more intensity in these areas. (Next Slide) It is important that we talk about the sensitive communities concept before we dig too much into the other details of the map. A clear theme we heard from community input was concern for certain neighborhoods within the city that are most sensitive to displacement risks. We have identified sensitive communities that are proposed for additional tools within the zoning rewrite process. This could include 4 incentivizing affordability levels. It could mean allowing less intensity in these areas, as well as prioritization of funding and other initiatives for affordability. (Next Slide) Those have been outlined here. We do have a slightly more detailed methodology in the appendix slides. In general, we looked at data from the ACS 2018 five year estimates. The two things we looked at were household income percent in a black group that have less than $30,000 a year, which equates to about 30% AMI (Area Median Income). The other factor we looked at was percent of people of color. We defined that as percent of the community that was not white/non-hispanic. When we put that information together for these black groups, these were those that jumped out. They have the highest points in the analysis that we did. (Next Slide) We know the black group is large. These black groups are much larger than the actual areas of sensitive communities might be. That’s one thing we’re thinking about as we move forward. We also know there are a lot of other factors that we would like your input on; things you might like for us to consider. That could include, not only housing costs, but change over time. It can be what is on a site now in terms of how likely it is to be redeveloped, aging in place, and disability status. One of the key things that jumps out to me is the impacts of historic land use decisions. We talk about sensitive communities. This is looking at who is there now. It is not looking at who was there many years ago. I want to flag that as something we have noticed with this. We wanted to take this initial data driven approach to have a discussion about it. (Next Slide) This is a response to the HAC (Housing Advisory Committee) future land use framework that was discussed. Their comments are on the left and our responses are on the right. In terms of establishing a low-intensity residential land use for those at risk communities, in the future land use map reducing the allowable intensity in those areas, we are proposing a sensitive community overlay that could potentially include less development intensity in the zoning. We have heard mixed opinions on whether allowing less development in those areas would be preferable for those who might be in those at risk communities. We want to make sure we’re not impacting potential wealth building in those communities. In terms of number 2, we have maintained general residential as the baseline lowest intensity residential land use including within those sensitive community areas. There is an important change to that. We have added a fourth potential unit to that general residential land use. With number 3 and 4, the proposed concept was that if a certain level of affordability was achieved, then medium intensity or high intensity residential could be allowed anywhere in the city if it achieved the level that was established. We have maintained corridor, mixed use, and residential corridor community focused and amenity focused for these medium intensity areas. We have tried to make clear that an affordability requirement should be strongly considered for these areas as part of the zoning process. In terms of number 5, there was a request to allow for greater variations of middle intensity or higher intensity residential throughout the city. The zoning process will break the land use categories down into smaller zoning areas. It will establish those transitions. We have not broken that down further on the land use map. With number 6 (defining unit affordability thresholds), we have noted that the inclusionary zoning process and other zoning mechanisms will establish those thresholds. The affordable housing plan does establish funding thresholds that will be tied to the ways that city is spending funding, which could play through in the land use map. 5 (Next Slide) It is important to reiterate some of these category changes. What you see here is the general residential and the medium intensity residential. The red is meant to call out for you what we have changed. In the general residential, we have added a fourth potential unit in those areas if the fourth unit is affordable. We have noted that the zoning tools and the zoning process will regulate what that affordability level is and what the maximum allowable development might be on any given parcel. There might be those gradations. Another change we have made in the general residential area is that instead of having a description of up to 3.5 stories, we have reduced that to 2.5 stories. We believe that is consistent with most of the housing throughout the city. What we’re looking at is allowing up to 2.5 stories and 35 feet. We believe that on the parcels in the city you can achieve a good size of units within those parameters. In terms of medium intensity residential uses, we have added that we’re thinking these would be house sized or house scaled in many ways. Previously, this was listed as 4 to 12 units. We have specified up to 12 units. We have noted those affordability requirements that we think should be established or considered to achieve the housing goals that we have. In terms of height with the medium intensity residential, we have clarified up to 3 stories with a 4th story allowed where it is compatible with the existing uses and context and meets additional affordability goals. Outside of these categories, there were no changes made on the other land use categories. (Next Slide) This slide has residential area changes. The next slide has mixed use area changes. There are a lot of concentrated changes. Besides the changes I already discussed, there have been smaller changes throughout the map. Some were small items that we needed to adjust. On High Street, a couple of parcels were brought into the mixed use corridor. They’re not actually accessible from High Street. There were a couple of places within Fifeville and Johnson Village where we added additional medium intensity residential near the school to reflect that goal. We did reduce the residential intensity to the east of Belmont Park. That was something that was a response to what we heard in recognizing how special that place is and recognizing that it is an iconic view for the city. We don’t think the medium intensity residential is necessarily a scale that would do that. In terms of the mixed use areas, I think I have already described many of these changes. On Lewis Mountain, we talked about the residential changes. We did recognize there was a school property that was included in the mixed use corridor. We have pulled that into general residential. With Locust Avenue, there was a mixed use corridor node intersection near the park. We have pulled back on that and shown that as medium intensity residential. We pulled back at Barracks, Greenbrier, and Rugby. We think the commercial we’re trying to achieve there can be achieved through the medium intensity land use. (Next Slide) We feel this revision addresses these goals that we put forth. This breaks down some of the pieces of the chapter vision that are put out. We’re looking to continue a variety of housing options throughout the city, including allowing for greater intensity in areas that currently only allow single-family development. That is still a major priority. We’re looking at addressing inequity related to the distribution of land, land uses, and increasing the supply and the affordability of housing throughout the city and ensuring there is a sufficient transportation network and the variety of options. We have also included protecting the natural environment, the place of Charlottesville by achieving these goals of more affordability and intensity but still keeping things, and maintaining and improving this commercial 6 vitality and opportunity throughout the city. That is supported in the general land uses and the mixed land uses. (Next Slide) We’re committed to this variety of housing types throughout the city. This slide says missing middle housing here in this graphic. We’re calling it soft density in the affordable housing plan. The missing middle straddles the line between the soft density and the medium intensity. This is not our exact vision. This is not a graphic we made. It is meant to clarify that we are looking at a wide range of housing options that can achieve various levels of housing options in many different ways. (Next Slides) We have included here (in the next slides) the descriptions of all of the land uses pairing the description with the map. In terms of the residential land uses, we have remained committed to these principles we have previously put forth. This is where general residential plays out. This emphasizes the corridors that pop out with the medium intensity residential. We’re not only talking about these mixed use corridors. We’re talking about these medium intensity residential corridors. The higher intensity residential areas are shown here. In many ways, we haven’t mentioned any areas that we changed on the map for these. There are a few spots that were adjusted. We did receive several comments about this parcel on Park Street. We received many emails supporting higher intensity of use on that site. We have increased that from medium intensity to higher intensity. Along JPA, we did previously list this as higher intensity residential. We have pulled back a bit some of those areas. The reasoning for that was due to environmental constraints. (Next Slides) These are the mixed use areas. We haven’t changed this general concept calling out where they’re located in the city. We have pulled back on some of the mixed use nodes that were previously in Barracks/Rugby and Greenbrier. I would like to reiterate this large opportunity on 29/Emmet Street that is in that area to provide higher intensity housing and that commercial use. The descriptions of these areas were not changed from what we previously discussed. We did swap out the neighborhood mixed use node picture to better reflect what we’re envisioning. These are the mixed use corridors shown here with the business and technology areas. There were no major changes to these areas. The two changes to the neighborhood mixed use corridor area were at Locust Avenue and along Rugby Avenue. With those areas, we envision that the medium intensity can still allow for a focused area medium intensity residential with commercial. The one clarification we did make in this category was just to know what we meant by key intersection for the urban mixed use corridor in terms of height. We have identified that meets some of the major roads notified in the Streets That Work plan. (Next Slide) – Development Considerations The last time we met we talked about development considerations and how this would actually play out on the ground. These have been slightly adjusted. We’ve added a note about the Design Control Districts. It is something that will remain in place. We’ve also added, under environmental issues, that there are a lot of different things to be considered. Critical slopes is always a topic of discussion. We have the stream corridor protection area on the map because it’s an important thing to consider. We also know that storm water runoff and considerations for the flood plain are important. Topography is something we heard a lot about in the last round of feedback. As we think about what might be considered in the zoning piece of this, as we move into the implementation, these last two bulleted items 7 are important based on the feedback we have received. Tree canopy is one major priority that we heard from a lot of people. That goes for everyone throughout the city. We’re not necessarily pulling back completely on development opportunities due to tree canopy but supporting it as much as possible; retention and replacement of that tree canopy. We’re working to make that clear. Transportation improvements need to be a major priority. (Next Slide) These are the current small area plans. There are details in these plans that should be considered for any development that happens in these areas. The land use map does not show every single detail of these plans. They remain a part of the comprehensive plan document and to be considered. We have also proposed potential locations that we think could be considered for future small area plans. These are listed in alphabetical order. They include areas that have been previously talked about for potential small area plans. I know Rose Hill, Harris Street, Preston Avenue, and JPA have been called out. They have been on the list for a while. Given the potential for land use intensity in these areas, they could be potential candidates. (Nest Slide) We have some examples of how this might actually look in the zoning. We just want to make it clear that this is not the last piece. It’s not just the land use map that gets implemented. We’ll be moving forward to the zoning rewrite. These are some examples showing how we can describe ways that this can really work within these neighborhoods. (Next Slide) We will also lay out what needs to happen to make these units work. We look forward to coming out with a zoning ordinance that can fully implement this vision. 3. Public Comments Michelle Rowan – We recently purchased a house in Charlottesville. Had we know before we purchased, we would not have purchased here. We had no idea that the ultimate goal of Charlottesville was to have this a high density area. We looked for something close to the hospital. It would have been nice if you had taken the opportunity to spread the word. It feels like this was done underhanded. We’re almost surrounded by golden rod. In golden rod once a property goes on the market, a builder is coming in to build 12 units. The golden rod becomes a circle of noise, roads, and people. We get stuck with the noise, confusion, traffic, chaos, and high population that we didn’t buy to begin with. This didn’t work in the 60s and doesn’t work now. You have missed it in a big way. Fred Borch – This has been an interesting presentation. I have been a homeowner in Charlottesville for 30 years. I know something about the city and I do love the city. I am a professional historian. As I have studied history, beware the law of unintended consequences. What are we trying to solve here? What is our goal? Is it more housing? If the goal is more housing, we’re definitely going to get more housing with higher density. The goal should be more affordable housing. What’s affordable housing? Is it really an issue of affordable housing? Or is it an issue of poverty? I’m not sure the solution for the future of the town is to increase density so markedly. I am in favor of more housing if it’s affordable. It’s a difficult situation. I am concerned about the law of unintended consequences. I would ask that you do additional study. 8 Ellen Tully – I’m not new to unintended consequences. The only interest of developers is in the bottom line. If you’re going to have zoning that opens the door to extreme growth, the developers are going to take advantage of it. It’s going to be very important you make it clear what is limited and what is possible as you set up the zoning. John Thompson – What you’re doing here is worthy. It’s a worthy goal. You’re trying to change the zoning to make more affordable housing. It looks like this map is carving up existing neighborhoods to look like something that is gerrymandered. What you had earlier is Grove Road designated as General Residential is now up to medium intensity. It cuts us off from the rest of the neighborhood. For years, we had to bear the brunt of traffic and noise. Please re-designate Grove Street as General Residential. The big issue is whether individual neighborhoods have a say in their futures. The common good has to take precedence. All we’re asking is that neighborhoods have some say. Kaki Pearson – It seems that it’s just the city that has this issue. Over the last ten years, we have huge numbers of apartments and townhouses on East Rio, East Water Street, and other roads. How much have they really helped the affordable housing? Census data has shown that new constructions in the city has outpaced the city’s population. We do need affordable housing. Why haven’t the Planning Commission and City Council acted to ensure there is meaningful percentages of affordability in all of these units? In the Dairy Market project, only 15% of the 180 units are classified as affordable. The government should have been looking at this. Why isn’t the county involved? Ted Pearson – I want to emphasize the disrupting of existing neighborhoods. On small lots, you can build larger dwellings. You have issues with parking, traffic, and existing infrastructure. I am a member of Mason Oxford Hills, a new neighborhood. Our street is very narrow. It is also a corridor between Rugby Avenue and Rugby Road. If you start building larger complexes on Rugby Road, a lot of people have bought those and renovated them. You’re going to be disrupting that neighborhood. Why haven’t developers built affordable units instead of higher priced apartments? I have read that they pay cash to the City of Charlottesville because they did not build affordable units. With minimal controls in zoning, developers can do whatever they want to make their money. Why can’t regulatory controls do something? Where is UVA in this process? Martha Bass – I worry that whatever we’re doing, we have not been able to allow affordable housing in any of the new developments. Developers seem to be able to pay a fee to get out of doing affordable housing. We only allow affordable housing for a certain number of years. I wanted to address the allowable height in medium density residential. I have seen that they have reduced the allowable height to 4 stories instead of 4.5 stories. I walked down West Main Street and saw what a 4.5 story building looks like next to a residential single-family home. It’s pathetic. If we have allowed that in the past, I don’t know how the Planning Commission allowed that. Now that this allowable height is going to be decided by new zoning rules, I challenge everyone on the Planning Commission walk down West Main Street and stand next to 4.5 story building next to a single-family home. That is incompatible with anything that Charlottesville wants to do. Mark Simpson – I have heard about adressing racial historical wrongs with this new upzoning plan. In the 1950s, my great grandparents purchased a brownstone house in Chicago. When it was time to collect the deed, my great grandfather went to the bank. Women were discouraged from transacting business. For a black woman, it would have been impossible. My great grandfather was deceived into signing the deed over to the bank. The family dispersed to different locations and never returned to living under the same roof. As a descendant of racial housing injustice, what is my recourse in 2021? Do I go to Chicago and demand they upzone that neighborhood? The current owner of that building has nothing to do with what happened to my family. Why would it be appropriate to demand the city of Chicago dismantle that neighborhood to accommodate apartment buildings? It would not guarantee affordability for black people. If the City of Charlottesville is serious about adressing housing racial injustices, they could 9 create a program to target individuals and families much like the voucher program in Evanston, Illinois. The City of Charlottesville could adapt a similar program. Our government is proposing to dismantle single-family neighborhoods. I don’t want 12 unit apartment buildings or commercial establishments in my neighborhood. Martha Smythe – I like the changes that you all have made. Some of the comments tonight are right on the money. I hope they get incorporated in the next iteration of this plan and the map. Kemp Hill – I would like to make a huge plea to slow down the process and expand it. We are still living in a pandemic, which has altered everything. We’re talking about a rezoning, which would change everything in the city. I see no reason to rush it. It is a worthy objective to increase affordable housing in the city. I see no reason for the rush. We’re talking about a wholesale change to the city. With the pandemic, it seems foolish to expand. Increasing density is one option. There are other options as well. There a whole host of solutions we haven’t tapped into. Julia Williams – I was interested in how creating these medium intensity corridors helps with connectivity. You included pedestrian and multi-modal safety. It sounds like more density means more parking. I was curious how you can explain that. The other item was the increased density along Elliott. That’s a very fast road. Going to medium density would probably make it more like Cherry Avenue. What you are doing is creating a swath from Belmont. Instead of slowing traffic, it is going to speed it up if we go to medium density. Exiting onto Elliott is not safe. I thought the initial argument for 3 units was that it discouraged teardown. It was analyzed by lot size. Three units would maintain the validity of existing homes. I am worried about these lots being pressured for redevelopment. This has been well- communicated to the community. This rezoning has not been hidden from us. Phillip Harway – The overwhelming purpose to redoing our comprehensive plan seems is to achieve more affordable housing and to right some of the injustices of the past. Since finding out about this new comprehensive plan in March, it feels like I am watching a football game where the home team decides to throw the Hail Mary pass. We should realize that we have time to concentrate on formulating a concrete strategy to succeed with more affordable housing goals and bring along the citizens. This plan presented by the consultant team is what I believe to be an ideological blueprint for pro-density interests. We’re asked to sit by and watch our representatives ‘put our eggs in one basket’ and hope upzoning will lead to affordable housing. The proposed plan is built on the idea that more density will create more affordability. There should be more actions that are recommended and enacted right now. The small area plans are a step in the right direction. Leonard Schoppa – I want to reinforce what you are hearing from around the city asking you to slow down. What you are proposing in terms of soft density in the general residential areas with 3 or 4 units is already accomplishing a lot. These have been considered quite radical changes when they were adopted in other cities. We haven’t even started to see what they’re changing there. I was interested in the question in the FAQ in what we can learn from these other cities. What I read was some concern that it wasn’t happening fast enough. People weren’t building those apartments above the garages or converting their basements into affordable apartments. The reason why you want to go to 12 units in general residential is you offer that level of density, there will be a lot of developers interested in buying single-family lots and building 12 unit apartments. I see that you want the buildings in medium intensity residential to be house sized. I am hoping to hear what that means. If you have a quarter acre lot, that is considered large. You can have 12 units. Taking up 60% of the lot, you can build up to 3 or 4 stories. You could have a building with 20,000 to 26,000 square feet. I assume that it would be physically impossible to build in a residential neighborhood. With the new zoning, it could allow buildings of are 26,000 square feet and four stories tall in the middle of a residential neighborhood with houses that 1500 square feet. 10 Maria Monteaguto – I have lived for about 20 years in the Greenbrier neighborhood. I am opposed to the high density plan. I agree with most of the people who talked before me. I recently discovered that many of my neighbors had never heard about the future land use map. Everyone should know about what’s going on. More needs to be done in this matter. Why is there such a rush for this drastic action that will significantly affect the city? Nobody can assure us the lack of affordable housing will be solved by increasing density. Benjamin Heller – I read the affordable housing plan when it came out. I was pretty shocked the word ‘student’ comes up a couple of times. That’s just malpractice. We’re a city of 47,000 people around a university of 16,000 undergrads. All of the numbers that have to do with poverty and rent burden are distorted by students. Over 9% of our households are 18 to 24 year old households. The number for Virginia is 4%. Among the households in town with an income of less than $10,000 a year, a higher percentage live in rentals costing more than $1250 a month. Almost all of Charlottesville is land- burdened. It is clearly a tiny fraction of off campus student households. It is not fair for the city and its residents to bear the entire financial cost of customers of a rich institution rich in money and land. I see the grey on that map. I only have one question. Is this dishonesty? That’s what I think it is. Planned proponents create a false crisis and narrative with exaggerated statistics without proper consideration of students. You haven’t given us a plan for Charlottesville. You have given us a plan for a city that doesn’t exist. Crystal Passmore – I live on Forest Ridge Road. I know a lot of parents are not able to talk to you tonight. This is a major timeframe for childcare. I want to point out there are voices that you are not hearing tonight. You had a long period of feedback. Your feedback summary is 33 pages long. One of the top comments you received was to make historically exclusionary areas denser, to protect minority communities, and to generally increase density across the city. Those were the top comments you received. These are the closest things we have to representative to how the city feels. It doesn’t seem that you took any of these notes. You increased the maximum building height when people asked for an increase in density city-wide. I heard you say that the things we want are still possible. What the city wants is possible with the draft you gave to us tonight but it is less possible with this current draft. You’re giving us the opposite of what we asked for as a community. I don’t know how you got to the current map. More than half the city rents. The people who rent want more affordable housing. They want housing closer to amenities. People talking tonight are not the ones with young families. People talking tonight already have housing. Andrew Grimshaw – I do not share your goal of increasing density in the city. I don’t recall that being on any ballot. You have basically thrown Alderman ‘under the bus.’ If you look at Alderman, there are 22 houses in that stretch that is going to go to high density. If you go to 12 units, that’s 264 houses on Alderman. Those will probably be filled by all students. All of the multi-units in the area are already filled by students. I disagree with the fundamental perspectives, particularly punishing neighborhoods because of people who lived there in the past. I have seen this before. I grew up in Bloomington, Indiana. There is an Atwater Street that was converted into high density housing. Within 15 years, a 30 block area had degenerated into a student ghetto. If you look at Lewis Mountain, where many of the students live, it is basically trash. What you’re proposing to do is throw Alderman ‘under the bus,’ and make it more difficult for the neighborhood where we can have a bunch of students trash the neighborhood. This is not the way cities are supposed to operate. Brendan Novak – Just moved back to Charlottesville. Searching for housing was a nightmare. I was looking for midrange apartment in the city where I can walk or bike to where I needed to go. If those did exist, it was rare. I ended up getting very lucky. I was able to find a unit in Belmont. I don’t feel I ‘lucked’ into a perfect situation. Listening to the comments, I am puzzled by the outrage behind what is being proposed. The unit I currently live in is emblematic of a lot of the proposed changes. It is a 11 converted house. I cannot afford to live in an entire single-family home. In terms of traffic impacts, something that was really important for me was the ability to walk and bike. You can’t not want traffic and not want density. It is frustrating to hear all of the outrage. Caroline Kiosko – I am here for the Charlottesville Low Income Housing Coalition. I want to draw people’s attention back to the HAC proposal. This is the map that introduced an affordable housing overlay throughout the city. It allowed medium density intensity by right development for all projects that include affordable units. The HAC’s proposal is preferable to the current version of the future land use map. It ensures additional density will be dedicated to affordability. It won’t be used to build luxury and student apartments. It rights a clear plan for protecting historically black neighborhoods into the map. We appreciate this identification we have heard about of for the sensitive communities. The map needs to prevent developers from taking advantage of the low cost of land in black and low income neighborhoods. There is a lot less grey between the August and May maps. There is less allowance for medium density under the current version of the map. This is a step backwards. We would ask the Planning Commission to tell us what they mean when they say affordable. This should be written into the comprehensive plan. We would ask that it be set at 30% Area Median Income (AMI). Dan Miller – In general, I am supportive of density and targeted reparations to right past wrongs. It seems that you have targeted people who live on arterial roads. The HAC’s plan seems to be better. It does gerrymander off certain parts of the community. Developers are an enemy we all share. I have never met a person who got a deal on their rent in a commercial property. When I saw my house in a general zone, I was excited. I could do an ADU or townhouse. It seemed that there was a lot that could be done to create affordable housing. Having a 12 unit building is a lot different from what is in these neighborhoods. Anthony Artuso – There is still a lot of work to be done. If you look at the document and map, it refers to future planning efforts, additional zoning activities, local area planning, affordable housing planning efforts, and future efforts that will make this land use plan workable, and achieve some of the critical goals. I see no reason why the Planning Commission should adopt this land use plan until those future efforts are completed. The planning team should come out to the neighborhoods. Nobody has come out to the neighborhoods to meet with the neighborhood associations. I urge the Planning Commission to do that additional planning. You need to complete the infrastructure planning. You need to complete the interaction with UVA and the county. If talking about affordable housing, we need to have more community ownership. This is all predicated on private development. We need more urban land trusts. Don Morin – I agree with all the statements made in opposition to the plan. I found that the consultants had done work for Sandy Springs, Georgia. Their projected growth is 40% and Charlottesville’s projected growth is 1% over the next 20 years. The RHI comprehensive plans for Sandy Springs had traffic studies, demographic information, assessment of housing needs, and other data. Every neighborhood in Sandy Springs contributed and signed off on the plan. The #1 goal of the plan for Sandy Springs was the preservation of existing neighborhoods. People want you to come out to the neighborhoods and explain what this plan is and listen to their feedback. The plan for Charlottesville doesn’t take into account the true population growth projected by the Weldon Center at UVA. There is no population explosion in Charlottesville. There is a need for affordable housing. Charlottesville spends more on affordable housing than any other jurisdiction in the entire state. The meeting was recessed five minutes due to the high participation with public comments. After comments and questions from Commissioners and Councilors, Chairman Mitchell reopened the public comments. The public comments below followed the questions and comments from Commissioners and Councilors. 12 Mary Whittle – I wish this whole thing had been approached in a different way. It has been so divisive. It seems that the entire dialogue has been about whose neighborhood is going to be ruined or whose neighborhood has been ruined in the past. It seems that we’re ignoring some positive solutions that we could take. It seems to me that Council acted as there are no possible solutions to Charlottesville’s affordable housing challenges, except to rezone the entire city. There are a couple of immediate actionable steps that you could take. Why not take land that you already own on Melbourne Road and Water Street (farmers market, off of Preston Avenue close to the Jefferson School and providing it to developers through a 50 year lease. In exchange, you get those developers to commit to building 100% free housing. We want 100% affordable, multi-family units. You can tell those developers that you want to be involved in the architectural review process to get something nice for people. What you are going to do is dramatically cut the cost of homeownership. People aren’t paying for the cost of the land. You would reach all of the goals that you want. Nancy Baxley – I am concerned about developers coming in and turning Charlottesville into “Generica.” I look at what happened on West Main Street and different developments that are happening, I see the same architectural designs that have been put in other cities. Developers know they can make money. I am afraid Charlottesville is going to lose its identity by turning this over to an ad hoc ‘who is going to make the most money.’ If you’re going to leave it up to a developer, they’re going go for the lowest amount of money on their end that gets it done. Another concern has been the tree canopy. Tree canopy in historically black neighborhoods has been eradicated. This needs to be preserved. The land use map allows the building up to 4 feet from the property line. This type of thing encourages trees to be cut down. My proposal would be more of a surgical approach to this, a more incremental implementation. Target certain areas. Do this overlay. Let’s pick these areas. Let’s do this in smaller areas. Kevin Hildebrand – I am concerned about the plan’s reliance on corridors for medium intensity development. Those corridors tend to align with major circulation zones through the city. They’re pretty congested with single-family use of driveways going onto those streets. As the plan gets built out and those corridors are developed to their capacity, you’re looking at 8 to 12 cars per driveway. Is that going to be sustainable across the major circulation zone through the city? Is that circulation zone really appropriate for the medium intensity use? The other thing that bothered me in the new plan was the notion of house size as a defining characteristic. That’s very arbitrary. A house on Park Street is different than a house on Cherry Avenue. You have to come up with a way to define that. In this latest plan, I was pleased to see the Cherry Avenue Christian Church quadrant of Cleveland Avenue has been taken out as a community business node. I was concerned to see Oak Lawn Plantation has been removed from the medium intensity future development possibility. If something was to happen to that house, would the best use for that land in that part of Cherry Avenue be general residential or more appropriate for medium density development because of its location. James Groves – I support the goal of affordable housing. I am concerned that the medium intensity residential zones are not the right instrument for achieving that goal. These zones will need demolishment permits and single-family house teardowns. Slide 26 (middle housing) does not illustrate 5 to 12 unit structures compatible with modification of existing single-family homes. The missing middle housing book does not present a single example of a single-family home being retrofited into more than four units. Slide 40 shows missing middle medium construction beginning from empty lots. Medium intensity residential zoning will lead to demolitions incompatible with the environmental chapter of the city’s draft comprehensive plan. Goal 1 of that chapter proposes a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions this decade and carbon neutrality by 2050. Demolition will increase greenhouse gas emissions, not decrease them. A study by The National Trust for Historic Preservation examined Portland, Oregon. Retrofit and reuse of homes would deliver 15% of that city’s greenhouse 13 gas savings over the next decade. That study also reports even if new construction is energy efficient in operation, it can take between 15 and 50 years to overcome the negative climate change impacts of new construction. Science tells us that we must cut emissions now. Medium intensity residential zones are problematic of the impact on storm water management and the city’s tree canopy. In terms of rain, a recent UN report on climate change indicates the eastern US will experience intense downpours. Slide 36 lists environmental issues but fails to mention climate change. Medium intensity zoning will fill small lots with 5 to 12 units, create more impervious surfaces, and overwhelm the city’s storm water management system. As existing tree canopy is eliminated to accommodate larger structures on lots, the city will lose beautiful, carbon absorbing trees that provide shade. Elimination of trees will add to the heat island effect. I recommend elimination of the medium intensity residential category. Barbara Heritage – I want to begin with another concern about community feedback. I hear that this group has made an effort to be open about the process to share information. My house is slated for upzoning. I only learned about this plan from reading the New York Times. I received no email, flyer, phone call, nor any other communication about the comprehensive plan. I went door to door talking to neighbors. Nine out of the twelve individuals had never heard about this plan. The city was told in May and June that many didn’t know about the plan. This planning group took no steps to contact the actual homeowners whose property is being discussed. Why have you not contacted the actual homeowners in the Greenbrier neighborhood? Why do so many have no idea about the plan to date? Do you think this is an acceptable and ethical way to proceed at this time? We are in the middle of a climate crisis. Charlottesville has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050. The current plan says that it will strive to retain tree cover and replant trees. This plan will still entail the destruction of mature trees, particularly in the Greenbrier neighborhood. Kakie Brooks – Throughout this process, we have heard much about how density promotes social equity. We have also heard a lot about how City Council and Planning Commission care about Charlottesville’s black community. According to a recent report in the Daily Progress, over the past 10 years, Council has allowed the density of the historically black Tenth and Page neighborhood to nearly double, greenlighting huge apartment projects, such as The Flats at West Village, the Standard, and the Lark on West Main. The result as shown by the 2020 census data, is black residents’ flight from Charlottesville’s historically black neighborhoods and a steady rise in housing prices. Given these outcomes, why are you pushing to do the same thing throughout the entire city? Given the urgency of the affordable housing crisis, why didn’t you ensure that some of these posh new apartments were guaranteed at affordable rates for residents in need of housing? Given the outrage over the historic use of restrictive covenants and redlining to deny black citizens the opportunity to build wealth through property ownership, why have you considered encircling Charlottesville’s historically black neighborhoods, ‘a giant restrictive covenant’ that prevents development and deny black citizens the opportunity to build wealth. Is it because you know that developers will force them out of their neighborhoods by bidding up property prices and building non-affordable housing? It seems ironic the plan that you’re proposing may result in City Council enacting a restrictive covenant that will deny black residents the ability to build wealth. A UVA urban planner noted that the likely outcome of your plan is that homeowners’ property values will probably go up. You have allowed a new class of wealth buyers to bid up home values. Poor people are forced out and Charlottesville’s historically black neighborhoods are destroyed. Chris Schopper – I am a renter. The opinions you hear are going to be different from those you have heard for the past several hours. There’s been a lot of talk about what we need to do about affordable housing. Housing affordability is an issue. Those homeowners don’t have to deal with the fact that rent goes up $100 each year. Or each year they’re competing with others in the community to find the few available spots that are cheap to live. The concerns and considerations are very different. If you’re a 14 homeowner, you have the luxury of seeing your property values appreciate each year. I see a lot of vilification of the apartment complexes on West Main as symptoms of gentrification. We don’t talk enough about the people who move into historically black neighborhoods, put up a white picket fence, and remodel the home and don’t interact with community members. In 2010, West Main was a series of parking lots, car shops, and undeveloped lots. It’s really frustrating when people talk about vacant lots in the city we can use to develop. That was West Main Street 10 years ago. We have reached a point where the simple presence of apartment complexes is infuriating enough that people feel their entire identity and the city identity is threatened. Previous commenters talked about the possible negative impact on climate. What is not considered is when we push people out to development in the surrounding counties, those people are driving. The developments they are living in are R-1 housing. Framing urban infill is an ineffective tool for carbon emissions. I hope we can move back in the direction the first future land use map was going. Mark Whittle – I would like to return to the comments made by Don Morin. That was concerning the contrast between the RHI Consultants comprehensive plan for Charlottesville and 2017 comprehensive plan for Sandy Springs, Georgia. The contrast is breathtaking. It is astounding that the City Council has accepted something so clearly inferior. Every neighborhood in Sandy Springs contributed to and signed off on the plan. The plan’s first of ten goals was the preservation of existing neighborhoods. Sandy Springs earned gold status as a green community. RHI won an excellence in planning award from the state of Georgia. RHI’s plan for Charlottesville provided no data, no studies, no statistics, no projections, and minimal community involvement. Charlottesville’s comprehensive plan didn’t contain a single graph or chart. It had a single primary goal: equity. Why didn’t we get what Sandy Springs got? To RHI, do you think a plan developed on no facts or data represents the best practices that you are striving for? To City Council, why didn’t you ask for the detailed data you needed to make the best possible plans? How is it possible RHI generated two different, radical plans? Looking at these two plans, I am perplexed how they both are a city comprehensive plan. Nancy Summers – I believe that we must concentrate on affordability. Affordability is a huge issue. Housing prices have risen. Trying to manage affordability through the transformation of the city is going to be problematic. I would go at it directly and build affordable housing. The indirect method is going to be problematic and have unintended consequences. We use the word ‘density’ all the time. We never mention that density means enormous amount of population growth. Population growth brings its own problems. If you don’t think of affordability as its own thing and counting on a trickle down housing plan, we’re going to build expensive houses and apartments and hope that it helps poor people. Council’s record of ensuring affordable housing from developers has not been good. They’re always getting outsmarted by developers. Let’s say Council is able to hold the developers accountable. Tim Giles – I am a renter. My thoughts are a lot different from everybody else tonight as well. Cutting down the general residential from 3.5 stories to 2.5 stories will create issues in the long run. We will have houses that can’t even be built in existing R-1 neighborhoods. If we can’t build more housing, they can’t be affordable and we’re exasperating the crisis. We need to build more housing. How do we build more housing? We allow more housing. If we use 4 units, we can use Fair Housing Act requirements for accessibility on ground units. By building more housing that accommodates more people in the long run, we can continue to create a Charlottesville that is livable, equitable, and a more lively living space. We only have so much land in the city. We should do better with the land we have. We should have more attached housing. We need to have more of that to create more wealth ownership, to allow other people to generate their wealth, to build housing at different price points, and people of all incomes and faculties have a place in Charlottesville and can contribute to its character in the long run. We need to increase general density and take more advantage of mixed use and small commercial use in neighborhoods. If we want things to be walkable and bikeable, we need to incentivize the people in 15 those areas to not be dependent on their cars. We need to give people the ability to use other modes of transportation. The current draft of the map is a step back, especially in relation to the more affluent owners. Dick Gibson – I agree with most of the comments that have been made this evening. I agree with the comments on the need for more affordable housing in Charlottesville. I have been involved with two affordable housing projects in and around Charlottesville. These were through a nonprofit. They were difficult projects to make economical. Being a nonprofit, we were able to get grants, favorable loans, and rent subsidies to make them affordable. There’s no profit in them. A developer is not going to build an affordable housing complex. A house is a house on the outside. If you have 12 units with a unit that looks like a house, you’re going to have more traffic, noise, parking, vehicle trips, etc. You need to look at the streets in front of the house. I live on Grove Road. The lots on Grove Road are subject to deeded restrictive covenants that limit development to R-1. The deeded restrictive covenants take priority over any attempt by the city to change the zoning. That has been confirmed by the City Attorney. I don’t find that in the consultant’s report. It puts people in a position of jeopardy having City Council upzone to medium intensity. There are deed restrictions that can’t be overcome by City Council. It has created anxiety in my neighborhood who bought their house in R-1. That needs to be addressed to put people’s minds at ease. David Ramm – I am a relatively new resident to Charlottesville. I am disappointed that we lost the mixed use part of Rugby Avenue. I love density, variety, apartments, and townhouses. I have lived in those neighborhoods. The results are dynamic neighborhoods full of people. People bring a variety of options. Charlottesville could stand that. I think we can see more people, variety, and life. Affordability is a very critical point. The affordable housing overlay makes sense. I would urge that be considered more. I have been pretty frustrated. The conflation of the comprehensive plan for Sandy Springs with a land use map is really a weird thing. This is a part of the comprehensive plan. It is not the whole thing. The population growth for Charlottesville is not one percent. If you look at the data, there are a lot of different numbers. The number of dishonest arguments against this plan is one of the best arguments for it. If that is the sort of thing we’re hearing (dishonest arguments), the plan is mostly working. The reality is not the critique of the plan but a critique of an imagined version. Diane Dale – I share concern about how divisive this process is as evidenced by this presentation. The HAC treats the issues as a citywide problem. The plan has addressed historical land use wrongs that people feel that there are winners and losers. There are areas that are chosen to be altered or protected. What the HAC plan does is recognize that there are wrongs across the city (economics, education, healthcare, land use, social norms). It was a citywide problem. The HAC plan addresses the city as a whole. There’s an opportunity to be unifying rather than divisive. That’s an important aspect of that approach. What we’re looking at now continues to divide this community. I am a member of the steering committee for the comp plan. My neighborhood knows what is happening because I have kept them involved. Alex told me that the consultants had done an extraordinary job of reaching out to the traditionally underserved neighborhoods. You have received a lot of input. The input is reflected in a lot of concerns about affordability and housing. I think the structure of neighborhood associations has really fallen apart with the pandemic. If you live in a neighborhood with a board that is paying attention, you know what is going on. A lot of the neighborhoods had no idea what is happening. They generally have no idea of what is happening. Unless you have a good board, there was no communication. I don’t know if the person in charge of outreach reached out to the individual boards. You did a good job of reaching out to certain parts of the city. There are neighborhoods in the city that got left out. That’s because of the pandemic and the structure that Dr. Richardson had set up for the neighborhood leaders. That stopped happening. 16 Josh Krahn – We’re hearing a lot of people saying density, as a rule, is undesirable. Even people who support density and want to focus it in certain areas (historically exclusionary areas) frame it as a sacrifice that is worth making in the name of equity and affordability but not something that is good. I disagree with that. Some of my argument is that density is good. I want more density in my backyard. I want more neighbors, more diverse neighbors. More neighbors is more fun. I want places that I can walk to within my neighborhood. Locust Grove is a food desert. If you came to my house, you would think this is a walkable place. If you live here, you realize that’s totally not the case. It’s a completely un- walkable place. There’s no retail amenities within easy walking distance. Everyone takes their cars to run errands. Walkability might be one key to unlock divisiveness. When people think about density, they imagine this same car-centric place with more people and bigger buildings. If people experience a truly walkable community, they might see that it is not this ‘hells gate’ they’re afraid of. Oliver Platts-Mills – I believe that the consultants and Planning Commission have done an excellent job of engaging the citizens, especially considering the ongoing pandemic. I hope they continue to engage the citizens. There are too many people who were in the dark. Prolonging this process risks deepening the housing crisis as investors and developers wait to see what the city decides. I would like to add my voice to those calling for a modest increase in density in the entire city. Allowing a variety of housing types in our neighborhoods will help share the burden; but mostly the rewards of welcoming new residents into our city. I live in Fifeville. We have a number of housing types. I have met wonderful neighbors in all types. I would like to call attention on the map to the mostly vacant land adjacent to Roosevelt Brown Boulevard between the Cherry Avenue intersection railroad underpass. This is adjacent to UVA Health System, the largest employer in our area. While traffic is a problem in the Fifeville neighborhood, it is largely driven by employees of UVA Health System commuting from outside the community. The zoning for this area has been given the same zoning on the map as mixed use or urban form into our single-family neighborhoods. I struggle to see how our consultants will manage it in a zoning rewrite to hold land adjacent to Belmont Park the same as land adjacent to UVA Medical Center. I don’t see any conversation about this. I think it is important this process considers to take the needs of renters and center them. David Singerman – It is no coincidence that the voices on the call have gotten younger as the evening has continued. It is past kid’s bedtime. People can now contribute. That echoes Crystal Passmore’s point about whose voices are being heard on this call and whose voices are not being heard. Almost everyone speaking on this call are property owners. I am a homeowner in Fry Springs and have been a homeowner for a couple of years. I would encourage those on this call with children to think about what they like about Charlottesville and where you would like their kids to be able to live. If you have kids and would like to be able to live in Charlottesville, we’re going to need to build a lot more housing. I agree with the people who have spoken that like density, like having more neighbors, and like more diverse neighbors. I am fortunate to live in a corner of Fry Springs where there are a couple duplexes around the corner. That livens up the neighborhood and makes things a lot more interesting. If you have moved to Charlottesville and live here because it is a great place to live and would like other people to experience it as a great place to live, you need to support a version of this plan that increases density across the city. I would encourage the Planning Commission to listen to what Livable Charlottesville had to say and go back to the version of the plan from earlier in the summer. Laura Biazon – I have spoken before about my family’s home towards the end of Amherst Street being less than 20 feet away from a high intensity zone with no tree line separating them. Five other homes on this street border this zone. Many of us missed the public comment period. Commissioner Solla-Yates told me that my comment would be included with the others. I was disappointed to see that nothing changed with the new map. Is there a rational for this? I have made it clear that we are not the NIMBYs in the urban dictionary sense but in the literal sense. What protections will we have? Will a developer be 17 able to build a 5 story apartment complex and parking lots? We were cautious when buying our house to look at the zoning around us. We never imagined that this would happen. I have also expressed my frustration at the framing of this initiative around race. We are a minority family. Our house stands to be one of the homes most severely impacted. I ask to please reconsider that high density strip at the end of Amherst. Please make that middle intensity. That will better fit our area. We welcome people from all walks of life. I was also disappointed to see that the middle intensity is being scaled back in the wealthiest neighborhoods in this most current map. My street is a middle-class diverse street. Our comments about high density being next to low density seems to be ignored by the Commission. It is stressful and disappointing for our family. Michael Salvatierra – I live on Welford Street, which is within one of the neighborhoods that stands to see the most change. I am very much in favor of the zoning changes. I support increased density and multi-unit housing. It needs to include affordable housing. We all benefit from a variety of types of housing. I agree with the previous comments that noted the many people who oppose zoning changes are not the people trying to find affordable housing. The arguments around neighborhood character are based on the same kind of thinking got us the unjust exclusionary housing laws. If we want to repair that injustice, one way is to make more of our city more accessible and affordable for everyone. The status quo is worse for people with jobs and makes it more difficult for people to work in the community where they live. Any changes to neighborhood character are more than worth it if it creates a more just and inclusive housing policy. The housing overlay zone sounds like a promising possibility. I prefer the previous proposal from earlier in the summer, which had more substantial changes. Mark Rylander – One of the things I have been disappointed about is the lack of illustration at the neighborhood block level of what we’re talking about when we look at the land use map. It seems like a real disconnect to go from the aspirational goals of the comp plan. When I talk to friends and neighbors about what the plan actually means, I can’t really tell what it means in terms of units. A house that has 3 units in it that hasn’t changed is exactly the same as a single-family house. If it’s 12 units on a lot, what does that actually look like? I would like to see more relevant images to Charlottesville and plans and diagrams that show if we’re going to increase density, what is going to look like? I have been concerned seeing a lot of images from Washington and the canon of new urbanism. Another important thing is the limits of what we’re able to accomplish through this process. I know that affordable housing is really difficult to pull off. When I have sat in on a HAC meeting, I realize the special breed that affordable housing advocates and developers are bringing together the funding. This conversation about increasing our affordable housing is a very specific and technical thing. It’s not going to be solved by private sector development. Density alone is not going to provide it. There’s a lot of work that has to be done on that piece to make it happen at the project by project level. Ethan Tate – My comments reflect the collective thoughts of myself and my spouse. I want to talk about traffic and neighborhood character. With traffic, this chapter of the comprehensive plan and future land use map are tools that help reduce the community’s reliance on private vehicles for aspects of daily life. I urge you to keep pushing on this opportunity in all contexts, particularly the number of vehicle trips in all neighborhoods that could be eliminated every morning and every afternoon if we invested in the walking and biking infrastructure that families need to safely to get to the schools. I would like to see more multifamily homes allowed, especially within a certain radius of all public schools. To meet our climate goals, we must allow more families to live in the city. This density-fueled walkability promotes an active lifestyle from an early age and allows for more connection to diversity of all kinds in our neighborhoods. Those multifamily houses will be within financial reach for more families if we are smart in how we implement the affordable housing plan and the affordability overlay. Ecologically, our future has to be denser. The neighborhood character I care about is how welcoming people are, how comfortable are our neighbors offering and asking for help, how we celebrate progress, do we know 18 each other’s name, do we assign blame to different people, and do we act like a community. Neighborhood character isn’t about pink colors on shutters. Neighborhood character, for me, is about neighbors, the people, and the community we want to create. Please remember you’re planning for a better future. Bill Emory – For the past 11 months, I have asked zoning, planning, and land use people for a map of the existing affordable housing in Charlottesville. I have asked for the number of affordable dwelling units needed per neighborhood to meet our goals. These maps and numbers aren’t available to me or the Planning Commission. How can we do our job without this information? In my communication, I have restated the Woolen Mills 1988 neighborhood request for a small area plan. Bad zoning code was forced on my blue collar neighborhood at the time of its annexation in 1963. Sweeping, large envelope changes were laid down. People’s yards were split-zoned for manufacturing. Since 1963, we’ve been asking for a cure, talking to our elected representatives, talking to the Planning Commission, and talking to the Neighborhood Development staff. Over the intervening years, through land use maps and code rewrites, we’ve taken small steps, securing minor favorable amendments to benefit the cohesion of our fragile neighborhood. The extensive Harland and Bartholomew zoning is still in place. The Harland and Bartholomew area is teed up in the proposed land use plan to be expanded and renamed as the neighborhood mixed use node. I don’t want power brokers or pressure groups writing our zoning code. All of Charlottesville’s neighborhoods are sensitive. Zoning is best done with the population, not to the population. We continue to ask for thoughtful, care, fine grained, insightful, responsive neighborhood planning. Jamelle Bouie – I would like to express support for the May revision that had more substantial changes to density across the city. I would like to express my support for greater density in historically exclusionary neighborhoods. I live next to a number of multifamily units. It has been a real pleasure to be in a neighborhood with those kind of mix housing forms. I think that members of our community who are securely housed don’t fully appreciate how dire the housing situation has become for many community members who don’t have the opportunities, income, or wealth to be able to purchase a single-family home. I am thinking of teachers, restaurant workers, nurses, and the people who make Charlottesville work. They should have a place in this city. There’s not enough attention paid to the ways the status quo is already exasperating the problems that some speakers said they are concerned about. These things are already happening. Duplexes are already being bought and turned into single- family homes. Many such changes are already happening. Luxury housing is being produced with unattainable prices. Nicole Scro – There are some technical things that I want to say. The first thing is the change from 3.5 stories to 2.5 stories. I heard the consultants say what we want is still possible. This plan doesn’t allow you to build stacked triplexes or a stacked triples with an affordable unit in the basement, which would be a 4-plex. It would be harder to do. I know a lot of these details about what can be built will be brought out in the zoning rewrite. Going from 3.5 stories to 2.5 stories is taking housing types and affordability levels off the table. If I am limited going vertically, I have to go horizontally with my number of units. If I build horizontal, I might hit the horizontal disturbance, which might require me to do a VSMP plan, which would be more expensive and hamper my ability to do more affordability. These are real impacts. Multifamily is certainly limited by making this change. The idea of being intentional about our affordability is that it is not about a luxury apartment building versus a 5-plex. It is a big mansion, single-family home versus a 5-plex. Josh Carp – The last time we talked about the land use map, I felt good about this community. This community does care about affordable housing. That’s why this draft is a letdown. The community asked for more density and more affordability in the affluent white neighborhoods. The new draft cut 19 down density across town. Was it done to protect sensitive communities? The new map didn’t decrease density in parcels that are disproportionately highly valued and the owners are disproportionately white and wealthy. This is not being done to help low-income communities. We asked the city to make it easier to build affordable housing. The plan cuts heights for 8000 parcels across the city. It bans townhomes. PHA and Habitat know about building affordable housing. Both groups have said stacked townhomes are critical tool for building affordable housing. We should make it easier to build, not harder. We have asked for more walkable communities. The new map guts mixed use designations across the city. This map reflects the views of a small minority that are mostly white and wealthy. The community needs you to bring it in line with the whole community. We need you to bring back intensity in exclusionary neighborhoods. We need more mixed use areas. This map is disappointing The Planning Commission and City Council have the ability to make it better. Kathryn Laughon – I am speaking tonight for increased density and echoing the disappointment of the previous commenter. I would like to see increased density in the most historically exclusionary neighborhoods. We’re a city covered in Black Lives Matter and All Are Welcome Here signs. Our neighborhoods are the direct result of 100 year, explicitly racist policies. Changing our current land use policies is needed to create racial equity. We know that increased density alone is not going to create enough affordable housing. It is an essential piece of affordability. Despite the attitudes of many, there is a genuine housing crisis. It effects many and it needs urgent action. From a climate change perspective, we need density. Urban infill is ecologically sound. I appreciate being able to walk a couple blocks to buy basics. Denser neighborhoods are just environmentally better and result in less traffic. We’re hearing from a specific Charlottesville community. Please recognize that and please don’t listen to the voices asking you to slow down the process. We have to act urgently. The status quo is unacceptable. Greg Weaver – Something that has disturbed me tonight is that climate change has been left out of the picture. The anti-density callers that have mentioned climate change get the solution incorrect. Tree cover is important and needs to be taken into account. Our tree canopy needs to be strategically fortified. Solving climate change needs systemic change. We can’t just halt development and hope that halting takes care of the problem. We need to transform the way we live based on the things that we do that harm the planet. Transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country. As Charlottesville becomes more unaffordable and the working class move out into the county, we will continue to see a rise in single-family vehicles driving into the city as people go to work with increased emissions. Increased density and construction of multifamily homes coupled with increased mixed use zoning and increased infrastructure projects centered around pedestrian and cycling and take the necessary steps to bring workers back into the city and reduce the carbon footprint. It is worth cutting down trees to build multifamily housing. Some callers think higher density means more cars and more traffic. It doesn’t if infrastructure is changed to eliminate the need for cars. Anti-density callers keep asking to push these changes back so that we can talk more. In the face of climate change, we don’t have more time. These changes have been years in the making. We need to get this done. Andrea Massey – I am asking that you keep in mind that we need deeply affordable housing. We need to avoid further displacement of black residents and to consider the affordable housing overlay that allows medium intensity by right and provides exemptions from that for historically black neighborhoods. I would like to ask you to keep working to ensure density will be dedicated to affordability. This process and outreach has been going on for years. I would ask that you vote on this without delay. It’s hard listening to callers saying that this has gone too quickly and that UVA and the county are not involved. They are involved. This is not being done in a vacuum. This is being done with all of the other tools being looked at. Most upsetting is the talk about preserving the character of neighborhoods. These are a product of corporate, racial segregation. We have the responsibility to right that wrong. My views are completely aligned with what Mayor Walker had to say. Councilor Snook 20 continues to say that all housing needs be considered including the higher wealth and medium wealth community members. We have to put the voices of people other than those in front of mine so their needs can be met and fulfilled. David Walsh – I am from Minneapolis. I moved to Charlottesville last year. I wanted to second the comments that have been made. It seems that the Planning Commission has backed down from its initial plans for upzoning. There is a generational divide in the comments tonight. My fiancé and I are going to be here for quite some time. The number one issue we are concerned about is climate change and what that means. Increasing density and moving away from the car culture is our number one priority. I was impressed when I read the initial plan. It was a step in the right direction of what needs to be done in introducing a development model. We have a pedestrian mall in the center of Charlottesville, which has been a tremendous success. I really urge this Planning Commission to be mindful of the people who are participating in this conversation. More upzoning is better. Sam Bolin – I wanted to speak in favor of the increase in density. It is crazy that you could build a 3500 square foot home on a lot and you couldn’t build two 1500 square foot duplexes. It would go a long way in improving affordability in Charlottesville. I have heard some people say that this is not the complete solution. Density alone is not going to bring all of the affordable housing. As somebody who wants to buy a house, duplexes are more affordable. Smaller units are more affordable. As someone who rents in Belmont, I heard commenter say the best thing about Belmont is that it has the single family detached family dwellings. I disagree. That would not be the case if all of the houses conformed to be R-1. I love there are duplexes and small units. There were some good comments on specific areas. I do support the medium density and higher density zoning. I hope the Planning Commission will give thought to those comments. I think you could take 5 more years with this and there will be people who just found out about this and people that wanted to slow down. I would encourage you to listen to the comments that have been made. Emily Cone Miller – I am astounded by how much work has gone into this. I am also calling in for increased density. Density is good for the community and for the environment. I also wanted to say something how important it is to reckon with what we’re losing by not increasing density. The people who have called in who are afraid of what a denser city would look like are only thinking about what they lose if the city character changes. They’re not thinking about what is already being lost. People have to live elsewhere. Their lives are made very hard for having to live elsewhere. It would be very humane of us to decide, as a community that is not acceptable. It is important to think about what is being lost by not making changes to that place that would make it a more humane place for people to live. James Chang – I just found out about this. I did see that there is high density for our neighborhood. I would like to hear from our neighborhood residents and get back to you. I would like for our neighborhood to be heard. Kimber Hawkey – There is a problematic divide between young and old. There needs to be more understanding all the way around. Our property taxes go up every year. We have not seen a lot of extra services for those tax increases. We have seen a tax for runoff because of the increase in development that has caused more rainwater runoff. There’s a lack in faith in what the city is doing as far as affordability. I would like to suggest more of a surgical approach where you access properties that are already available to create those 4000 units that are needed. I am very concerned about the environment and tree canopy. There are opinions on both sides. From what I have seen in the city is a large destruction of trees and tree canopy. I have also seen many false promises made from developers who 21 have not created the affordable housing that they claimed to provide. I object to these accusations of people being fearful. We’re not fearful. We’re acting upon what we have already seen in Charlottesville. Charlotte Meadows – I would like to address that there is no analysis of any developer intentions. The newer proposition of the land use plan gives the developers a lot more room to maneuver. We have no idea what they’re going to do with it. There’s no accountability. We need to understand the developer’s intentions versus a can-do concept with economics. If you look at the cost of building a building, economically developers have to build way above marginal costs. They need to make money. It’s not about the good of Charlottesville. It is about money for the developers. When you look at the cost for units, it would $220,000 to $250,000 with rents between $1800 and $2000 per unit per month. That’s well above what anybody can afford. It’s something that we need to hold them more accountable. A lot of people from northern Virginia are moving here because they don’t want the crowds, the density, the noise, and the traffic. They want more greenspace and more relaxed living. Charlottesville is a desirable place because it is so beautiful. The Chairman gave the following members of the public an additional minutes to speak at the close of Public Comments: Mary Whittle, Kevin Hildebrand, and Michelle Rowan. 4. Planning Commission Feedback & Discussion Commissioner Lahendro – For the R-1 districts that you are proposing the upzoning of 3 units with a possibility of a 4th that is affordable, I have been doing a lot of reading. Most of the literature that I have come across has concluded that simply adding density does little to nothing to adding affordability to a city. Why is that still a recommendation? What is ‘magical’ about the 4th unit being affordable? Why wouldn’t developers simply turn single-family parcels into 3 residential units, take the money, and run? Is the 4th unit based upon some kind of data or studies? Ms. Koch – In terms of the general residential districts, we agree that adding density alone does not add affordable units to the city. There is an opportunity to provide units that are more naturally affordable if they’re at a size that is not available in a neighborhood right now. It may have more affordable options within the neighborhood. This land use map needs to be paired with the affordable housing plan, different priorities identified for funding, and funding for homeownership opportunities. In terms of the 4th unit, we did hear a large number of comments calling for 4 or 5 units in the general residential areas. It came through a lot of the conversations that we had with people, as well as through the emails. We wanted to consider it. At the time we were proposing it, we were concerned that could get to a way where there is some affordability required within that base by right general residential levels; maybe even outside of some of those larger initiatives from the affordable housing plan. This scale of housing can be naturally affordable. If we require some required level of affordability, that could be a way to get some of that more deeply affordable housing available within those general residential areas. Lee Einsweiler, Cville Plans Together – There is no specific evidence that 4th unit is somehow magically more affordable. It is a tradeoff that we felt was reasonable for adding to our original three. If you were going to add more, we needed some guarantee that some portion might be affordable. In most cases, the existing house would be used as the affordable unit. It is more affordable to renovate an existing house than it is to build a new house. You’re most likely to see the thing that is the affordable unit be the existing house if someone goes all the way to the extent of wanting four units on their lot. Commissioner Lahendro – I have given this a lot of thought and keeping an open mind. With the density issue, a consultant did a study about ten years ago that we said needed more housing across the 22 board. That would naturally trickle down. I threw this at Commissioner Dowell many times. I apologize. I am wrong. I have read too much that has said that the land has become more valuable now than the buildings that are on it. Given the opportunity to provide more housing units on the same parcel of land through upzoning, developers will build more units but at market rates that will not meet the affordability definition because of the desirability of living in Charlottesville and the surplus of people that can afford to purchase market rate units, there will never be a trickle down impact that will provide affordable units. I don’t support upzoning R-1 districts that would allow more market rate units. I support affordable housing overlay districts. For R-1 districts, it would allow up to 3 additional living units provided they meet the definition of affordability at various AMI levels and are permanently affordable. Similarly, I support affordable housing overlay districts for all land use districts, residential, commercial, business, and industrial. With protecting what we like about Charlottesville, the number one comment by the survey respondents is concern for community character, history, height, and scale; in other words, those existing physical features that make Charlottesville distinctive and livable. The identification and recognition of our historic districts represent, for residents, what is special and unique about Charlottesville. It must be protected. Land has become more valuable than the buildings on it, even the historic ones. The current demolition requirements protecting our designated historic buildings are weak. In most cases, the developer would simply have to wait 12 to 18 months for a demolition application to run its course before destroying a historic building. That can be built into the business plan. Therefore, I cannot support upzoning any property within a historic or conservation district. I would support an affordable housing overlay district that allows compatible infill accessory dwelling units solely to provide permanent affordable housing. Commissioner Solla-Yates – There were many changes. One that surprised me was the area near the University. There is very expensive land. The houses are also expensive. It is interesting to me because the opportunity really calls that out as a spectacular place where low income children can move up in our society. I was expecting really great things there. I really only saw large reductions in potential affordable housing there. I understand there has been public comment calling for less, especially among the highest income homeowners. That’s the biggest group that has been pushing this story. I hear and understand it. I am concerned about scale. Have we gone too far? Is there a happy balance between all middle and all general? That’s possibly some definition to balance between people who need things versus people who like aesthetics within a certain realm. I believe in aesthetics. Buildings that look the same but have different contents, I don’t understand why we are regulating the contents if they look the same. If there are 12 homes inside or 2 homes inside or one gigantic mansion, why is that a problem for us? If it is just aesthetics we’re concerned about, why are we regulating the residents? The Belmont Park is an interesting example. It is a beautiful place. I hope more people can enjoy it. Buildings that look the same versus buildings that look the same aesthetically looks the same to me. A lot of what I see makes sense. Commissioner Dowell – I do have some concern about the density that comes with this plan. I also want to support the overlay district of affordable housing throughout the entire city. It is hard listening to Ms. Koch to not fully answer the question of: If density does not create affordable housing, then why are we increasing density in these R-1 neighborhoods? It is very troubling for me. It is troubling from the comments we have received tonight and from the additional comments we’re going to receive. It seems like it is very troubling to our citizens as well. I do appreciate some of the clarifications throughout the presentation tonight. One was denoting the different types of nodes. This is not an easy task. We are moving forward. Commissioner Habbab – I am happy to see a huge response from the community. We had over 100 emails with the majority saying the changes were heading the wrong direction. We need more assertive language regarding affordable housing and the affordability of the affordable housing throughout all of 23 the different intensities and zoning requirements, not just the general residential. I think it could apply to most of them. I don’t get why the overlay doesn’t match well with the corridor node. I think they can work together when looking at the medium and high intensity and how that overlay can work with more affordable housing. There was a letter from HAC that we could explore having the affordable unit come in the beginning of the development instead of the end of the development. I want to look at the change of the language to limit commercial instead of neighborhood scale or neighborhood supporting uses. I understand the logic that the nodes and some of those medium intensity zones share the same meaning. I don’t find that problematic. Since we rolled back some of the medium node intensity throughout, we can move some of that back into the general residential. Three and a half floor homes exist. That’s not a concern. I don’t get why we moved back to 2.5 floors. I am supportive with the increase of units in the general residential. If you look at pages 19 and 20 of the sensitive communities areas, you will notice a lot of them have a lot of different intensities and nodes within those communities. The rest of the map has most of the general residential. It seems like we’re not really changing anything in those sensitive communities. It seems like we’re preserving all the different neighborhoods and down-zoning them in this latest plan. The areas that have been impacted still continue to be impacted since the majority of them are general residential. It is something we should probably take a closer look at. We could consider moving townhomes and cottage courts from the medium intensity to general residential. I don’t see a problem with that. They look like regular homes, especially the cottage courts. That would be very fitting in general residential neighborhoods and help us achieve more affordable housing. Commissioner Stolzenberg – How do you decide whose opinion matters? We heard many people’s feedback. Many people are arguing for one thing while others argue for the direct opposite. We’ve done surveys, popups, etc. We have received, in many cases, not a particularly representative sample of the populace. In the survey, it was 11% renters. Tonight, we have heard from a bunch of homeowners and a couple specific neighborhoods. When people are saying different things, how do you decide whose opinions will be headed? Ms. Koch – You know that we haven’t heard from people who are representative of the community. That’s why we have been looking at demographics when we can. We have been going back to equity and affordability for the overarching goal that we started the process with. We have the affordable housing plan. We’re trying to make sure the land use map can react with that and make change effective. We are trying to make that equity and affordability piece maintain strength. I think we have. We’re not swinging one way wildly or the other. If we did that, a lot of those neighborhoods, outside of these sensitive communities, would not have any additional increase in potential intensity at all. We have tried to strike a balance. We think it is important to keep some of that base level of residential intensity throughout. We have made compromises. We don’t think they compromise the goals. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would like to know about this claim that there is no help from density or housing supply. Is it the case that denser housing in our city is more expensive or even as expensive as detached housing in our city? Is it the case more supply will not bring the cost of housing at all? I’m not saying that we don’t need subsidies to reach our deepest affordability levels. We hear more and more that people hire at the higher income level than teachers, firefighters. People are getting paid more and more and can’t afford to live here. Does it not help? If supply doesn’t help, should we pare down housing to make it better? Ms. Koch – Increasing density in land use certainly does not necessarily help the lowest income households. That’s something that is clear in the affordable housing plan. It is laid out. Having different sizes of units available through all the different neighborhoods, a smaller unit is going to be more affordable. There are benefits to be had in terms of affordability from market rate affordability. 24 Commissioner Stolzenberg – When talking about this 4th unit without an incentive, I don’t understand where that is coming from. Who will build that 4th unit? It sounds like you’re asking people to build it out of the goodness of their heart. Developers do not do things out of the goodness of their heart. They are profit seeking. We need to create incentives if we want to get mandated affordable units. There needs to be some reason to build them. I know that Portland made its form with 6 units on top of 4 base units in their general residential. They were hoping for nonprofits to build those. In talking to our local nonprofits, we have a couple rental-oriented ones that don’t building buildings that size. You need at least 40 or 50 to get to a LI THC application. We have homeownership oriented ones like Habitat and the community land trust. What they’re really seeking is for townhomes and particularly stacked townhomes. They keep saying stacked townhomes. That’s the fastest path to get that affordability because land is so expensive. You can half the cost of land. I don’t understand why we’re not talking more about townhomes and stacked townhomes. I really don’t see the corridor thing. Two and a half floors at 35 feet means 14 foot ceiling heights. That is not a recipe for naturally affordable housing. Commissioner Russell – I want to echo support of the inclusionary affordable housing overlay. We have to be intentional about affordability if we want to see it and not open it up and hope it happens. I really see affordable overlay as being intentional. I also see some conflict in the rhetoric of the land use chapter and how the future land use map looks. I support the vision statements on 525. In the FAQ that was shared earlier, it states that the plan is to prioritize the retention of structures wherever possible with the focus on adaptive reuse and infill rather than demolition. We don’t have anything providing that larger single-family home would be subdivided as opposed to speculative demolition. In this scenario, our wealthier neighborhoods might actually be protected from that speculative demolition because the economics would not likely work out to tear down a large home with a value. I wondered how we would protect the more modest structures in our neighborhoods that are already serving a purpose that are rentals as modest homes. For the sensitive areas, I want to be sure, in addition to potentially limiting wealth accumulation, I question in already gentrifying neighborhoods, we wouldn’t actually be reinforcing gentrifiers or benefiting them in renovating older homes and turning them into large single- family homes. How does that benefit the neighborhood? I would encourage us to work with Legal Aid and the neighborhood leaders to continue this conversation about protecting those sensitive areas. It seems that the definition of the missing middle house is 2.5 to 3 stories. If that’s what we want, that explains the reductions from 3.5 stories. We should be advocating for a range and a choice in housing, a range of housing opportunities that is sensitive to the built form of our neighborhoods. That’s what Cville Plans is working towards. It is our role as planning commissioners to guide the density more specifically and not leave it to the market to decide what is built and what is affordable. Chairman Mitchell – The latest iteration disappoints me. The affordable housing plan the consultants put together was designed to promote zoning and development that increased multi-family development in a way that buoyed equity and affordability in Charlottesville. I think back to the invasion of Charlottesville many years ago by Mr. Barbonia when he brought his ideas about exclusionary zoning to Charlottesville. It was embraced. Where we are today is combating that. The affordable housing overlay that was proposed on July 13th went a long way to buoying the affordable housing stock in Charlottesville. It looks like we have moved away from that. I would like to see us reembrace that. I would like to see the affordable housing overlay get embedded into the future land use map. When we move to the zoning ordinance, it will have some accompanying principles that define that. I believe four stories in general residential districts is not a bad thing. Eight unit dwellings in those districts makes sense. It is something we ought to give some thought to. I do believe that we need to do all of these things I just talked about and protect the sensitive, low-income areas. Councilor Snook – We have to remember that the future land use map is part of the comprehensive plan. It is only about 3 pages of the comprehensive plan. The purpose of a comp plan is a plan to deal 25 with current and emerging problems. It is not particularly, frankly to only preserve existing neighborhoods. In some instances, that could be a problem that we’re trying to address. This is a comp plan that was supposed to have been rewritten 3 years ago. It floundered on many of these same issues because we weren’t able to confront these difficult problems. The three values that have to underlie what we’re doing: 1. Racial Equity 2. Climate Change 3. Dealing With All Varieties of Affordable Housing. We have to recognize that, at the moment, Charlottesville is becoming increasingly unaffordable for virtually everybody. That includes people who are making 100% of AMI. We have all heard the stories of people who have tried to buy or rent something in Charlottesville. They couldn’t find it. We know about the houses. There is one house around the corner from me. It was listed for $470,000 and sold for $520,000. We’re having prices outpace the expected rate of inflation. The reason is obviously demand. There is more demand than there is supply. We have more people who want to live in Charlottesville than we have places for them to live. That is true at all levels of income. When we characterize this issue, does market rate housing have to be built? Is it going to help out the <30% AMI neighborhoods? The answer is ‘no.’ Suppose we did something about both categories. Suppose we did something that increased the housing supply. We have to deal with both. There is a question about population growth. The Weldon Cooper Center several years ago came out with something that projected 1% growth ten years from now. The Weldon Cooper Center, in 2015, projected that we were going to have substantially higher growth. They were responding very specifically to the growth and the numbers that had come from the massive increase in apartments on West Main Street. The Weldon Cooper Center doesn’t deal with these discontinuities. They deal with projecting the last trend. One of the trends we have is that the University continues to grow. It continues to grow at an average of one percent a year. If you annualize it over the last 40 years, that’s what we get to. Charlottesville’s housing stock has not grown correspondingly. It was doing OK until 2015. Since that time, it has slowed down. During that time, we have seen the inflation. That’s a problem we need to deal with. It’s a comp plan issue. That makes it a land map use issue. When we talk about the ‘missing middle,’ we’re not only talking about form. We’re talking about ‘missing middle’ income. We’re talking about the people who can’t afford to live in Charlottesville anymore. Is there any way that the consultants could work up some pro formas of what it would like if you were to take a lot with a certain price and build a number of units? That would be very helpful to try to figure out. To what extent does any variety of these plans envision that the limits on the units, based on the size of the lot, enter the calculation? Could you have a setback requirement? Ms. Koch – With regards to the first question, that is built into the process that HR&A has been brought on to do in the zoning, which is in the inclusionary zoning aspect. They have it written into their scope to do that. They might have examples we could share. Mr. Einsweiler – There are lots of transitional tools for making larger buildings more acceptable when they show up next to smaller buildings. Stepping height down is one of those. I’m not certain we would have to talk a fair amount about when to apply a rule like that. It would have to do with the width of the lot more than the acreage of the lot. In many cases, we’re more interested in that issue of how much bulk and mass we can fit on the lot. It has a lot more to do with the lot width than the areas. The other thing missing from this discussion is that you have many lots, which are much larger than the minimum lot size in the existing zoning district, much less whether the lot size be in the future zoning district. You have lots, which could be subdivided through a lot split or a more complex subdivision and the creation of a new street. In your lowest density district, you have a very large acreage size. Some of that might be due to topography, the stream corridors, or wetlands. There are plenty of reasons why those lots might be larger. That doesn’t mean they are perfect to be split and made into subdivisions. Part of this discussion should include the acknowledgement that on a large lot, rather than simply adding to the units 26 in one building, one thing we would prefer is a series of buildings. One of the ways we can get that is by subdividing it. Mayor Walker – Knowing how many years this has been going on attempting to get the previous comp plan completed and hearing from people who are just starting to pay attention, which is typical when it begins to affect them in a way that they don’t want. We have a lot of work to do in terms of collective wellbeing for the community. A point my colleague just made in terms of his three points. The first one being racial equity, which is conflicted with creating housing opportunities for all people without prioritizing which housing to start with. I understand that a lot of people are challenged by what has happened with past developments, the increase in pricing of housing and land. There are certain members of our population, who without us prioritizing them, especially the lower AMI, they won’t be able to figure it out in Charlottesville or existing areas. It appears, from looking at these two land drafts, that some of the changes from the high intensity to medium intensity shows whose voices are being listened to. While it is important, we also have to take into consideration the historical context of why these neighborhoods are the way they are. I don’t agree that it is the responsibility of the current landowners. It shouldn’t be looked at as an individual responsibility if we’re talking about collective wellbeing. We know how we arrived at a place. We’re going to have to work together to change that. I’m hoping that we look at some of the changes that have been made. With some of the examples that Mr. Snook just gave in the Greenbrier areas, something listed at $420,000, which is completely unaffordable for most people even at 80% to 100% AMI; what the affordable housing overlay would mean to guarantee that we’re not just giving developers blank canvass to build throughout the city without having to prioritize affordable housing. Some interesting comments from people who are just noticing what a development like Monticello Dairy looks like in a neighborhood. That’s another area that we have to be concerned about long-term. That is attracting a lot of students. What that looks like for neighborhoods that used to be predominantly black neighborhoods are rapidly changing. How do we assist those families? Ms. Russell made some very good points about limiting, even with some of the recommendations from the HAC. How does that limit families that are currently in those areas who are not the families we want to place those limitations on? We have a lot of work to do. This has been a very open process. We have been putting this information out to the public. This isn’t something that was underhanded. We do have a lot of work to do to ensure the affordability. I really am going to ask the public to think about why they’re making the comments and whether affordability is their issue. When you start labeling people, who might live in those places as attributing to noise and crime that is not the case. People deserve decent, quality housing. We don’t have that to offer them as a city. Councilor Payne – Can the consultants recap what were the reasons you deviated from the original recommendation of the affordable housing overlay? What was the motivation for reducing its scale? How do the incentives of what you have proposed differ from the original affordable housing overlay that was presented by the HAC? Ms. Koch – The sensitive community’s layer that we’re showing is meant to speak to the recommendation of the HAC to have some protection for those communities. What they identified is a place to have lower intensity residential (Fifieville, Rose Hill, and Tenth and Page). There was a recommendation from them that these were draft areas. They wanted our input on how we thought that might play out. We have identified similar areas. We’re not saying they should be limited to current land use levels or current zoning levels. We’re saying that this needs additional tools to prevent displacement. In the zoning, that could mean that they do have less intensity there. We haven’t identified that here. In terms of the overlay concept, we did not include the HAC recommendation in this proposal. We have used the thought process of having a greater intensity in both mixed use and residential intensity along corridors or places where we can focus improvements. I don’t mean in just transit. I mean making sure they’re walkable, bikeable, and really livable streets and places for people to be and travel. That’s why 27 we’re focused on these corridors and nodes. We were concerned that, with an overlay, if we’re not directing that greater intensity of residential uses or other uses, it may not be as conducive as those improvements that we needed. What I am hearing from the Planning Commission, is that you would like us to relook at that. Councilor Payne – How does what you have proposed connect with the inclusionary zoning ordinance that is going to be worked on? Ms. Koch – With inclusionary zoning, certain categories or locations would be required to include a certain level of affordability or certain number of affordable units at a certain level. There may be incentives provided to provide affordable units. We know that the greatest potential for that is often in areas that allow higher intensity. With the study that will happen with HR&A, they will be looking at potential for inclusionary zoning, elements at a variety of scales within the final land use framework. Councilor Payne – It is very important to think about the housing ecosystem throughout Charlottesville. Zoning is one piece of that, which is very critical. Opening up the opportunity for more affordable homeownership and rental opportunities throughout the entire city and directly confronting the reasons that those opportunities aren’t available and allow more affordable duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes to be built instead of having a system where you can only build an expensive single-family home that is selling for $600/700 thousand. That connects with our affordable housing plan in terms of prioritizing providing housing for people at 10/20/30% of AMI but providing opportunities for wealth building throughout the ecosystem, providing a laddership of home opportunity. I do have some concerns with some of the changes, especially the affordable housing overlay. We have stepped back from that original goal to some extent. That has to be our priority for what we’re working on. It can absolutely be done. It can be done in a way that it does not connect with a lot of those fears. It is just allowing more homes that look like homes that are duplexes, triplexes that are opening up homeownership/rental opportunities and wealth building to more people in a way that is not disruptive and is not going to create any problems. We can get there. We’re not quite there yet. We’ve been working on this for four years. We’re 2 to 3 years behind the original date we had planned to adopt a comprehensive plan update. Every day we aren’t making these changes, both in our land use map and zoning, the status quo continues. We know exactly what the status quo is. It is gentrification, displacement, and all of the things that people continue to highlight as problems in our city. I do have some concern that we can’t continue to drag this out for more years without making any changes. We know that the status quo isn’t working. The longer we delay it, the longer that the status quo continues. Chairman Mitchell – I am going to echo what Councilor Payne just said. I will echo what Livable Charlottesville said. The longer we delay this, the longer we extend the housing crisis. We can’t delay this. We need to move quickly on the input you have gotten. We need to remember that this is an iterative device. 5. Planning Commission Final Thoughts/Adjournment Ms. Koch – We have heard what you have said (Planning Commission). We’re certainly looking to take direction from what you said. Commissioner Russell – We don’t want to maintain the status quo. That has served to disadvantage certain people at the benefit of others in the community/world. We’re working on getting that balance. I think we’re moving in the right direction. 28 Commissioner Stolzenberg – Some people have talked about this idea of trickle down to those at the bottom if we build more housing. What we have right now as the status quo is this game of just shoving out everybody at the bottom. The people who have the means can buy the homes. They can outbid the people below them for rent. If you have a home that is relatively affordable at $250,000, you have a potential buyer who can afford $250,000 and another potential buyer who can afford $400,000, that second potential buyer wins. That person that lives here who can afford that house at $250,000 is shoved out. The only way to solve that is to change it from a zero sum game with a fixed amount of homes to a positive sum game where we can create more homes. We can do that in a way that, not only minimizes impacts, but benefits the neighborhoods that are seeing additional homes come to them. I do believe that density is a boost in the neighborhood. More neighbors are good. Density for density’s sake is good. It gets the feet on the ground to support neighborhood services to support transit. It has ecological benefits of having shared walls and lower heating and cooling losses and having shorter commutes. If we want to hit our climate goals, we need to have more people living in the city and stop forcing people out. If you’re creating new density, you’re creating lots of value. Affordability is an important component of that. We can capture that value. You have to do it in a way where you’re incorporating these incentives and this requirement of inclusionary zoning in a way that pencils. The latest changes to the map make it so that any housing that isn’t a single-family house is not going to pencil in many of these neighborhoods. There’s no way a triplex is going to outbid a detached house when that detached house is $700,000 or more. Most of these houses in these neighborhoods, which have had medium intensity removed from them, have been. If you’re boxing yourself in now with these rigid expectations, you’re already losing. If we’re going to allow 3 units and a 4th by right if it is affordable, that does not pencil. There is no incentive. You’re going to have to make all of your ground floor homes accessible. You’re going to have to make that 4th extra unit affordable. The developer is looking to make money. That is their motive. They’re not going to do it. Our job, as policy makers, is to set incentives so these amoral profit seeking entities/developers do the things that we see as publicly beneficial. I support the overlay as initially proposed back in June/July. I think that means talking about having inclusionary components as part of it and tweaking the dial on that inclusionary component. That requires the flexibility now. That requires all of general residential in these neighborhoods and not just in the corridors. By capturing some of that value, you’re reducing how much is worth it. You’re reducing the propensity to actually create new homes on those sites. We’re not creating any incentives to avoid demolitions. We can be giving an extra unit bonus if we’re avoiding demolitions. While it is not ecologically viable or beneficial to do a teardown and a rebuild as the same thing, if you’re going to have a demolition, it is best for that to be many more units. You get the efficiency benefits of having many shared walls and a significant amount more density. If you get demolitions for a 3 or 4-plex, you’re really not benefitting that much ecologically. There are places in the city with this new plan, such as North Downtown that are high density in the 2013 future land use map, that are marked as general residential. Where the high density buildings are now get their lot changed. That’s the most high amenity place and mixed housing place in the whole city. There are places like University Circle that are already mixed. We can do a lot better. The need is great. The status quo is creating rapidly worse outcomes for the people in the city. Commissioner Habbab – This is a process that has been going on for years. It has been public. It is not something that just sprung up. The consultants are hard at work on this. I want you to think of us as more of a resource to help and encourage you to reach to out planning commissioners as you develop these changes to make sure we’re on the right track. We have to get it right by the next meeting. Concerning the new developments in Charlottesville, tree canopies, street trees, and traffic studies are all part of any new construction/development site plan approval process. Those things are going to be tackled on that side of things and in the rezoning. That’s where those surgical concerns and approaches will be addressed. The goal of the future land use map is more of a guiding tool for the rezoning process. Tree canopies and street trees will be part of that process. Students live in the city and are a part of the city. Students are an active part of the city and should be included in the data. I have lived in 29 Charlottesville as a non-UVA student since I was 21 years old. I do agree with some of the resident commenters that this is a very divisive, two-sided argument. It shouldn’t be. Everyone should feel pride in helping our city get on the right track and correct the historical wrongs. The affordable unit feasibility study is still in the works. My point in having more assertive language regarding affordable housing and affordable units in those designations under general residential/medium intensity is to ‘bake’ in something now so we don’t lose track of that when we get into the rezoning. Whatever language we can craft to have that as part of the process moving forward is what I am looking for. Bringing in some of that missing ‘middle’ housing and even some more arrangements into general residential and bringing back the 3.5 stories. It makes sense that those align with the neighborhood nodes. Explain how multi-model at medium intensity makes for safer traffic. Explain the need of house size. Is that a placeholder that will be a part of the zoning rewrite? Explaining why zoning diagrams are not done right now and the role of the comp plan and where those come in. Chairman Mitchell – The question you had about spaces. Are you comfortable with the comp plan on that? Commissioner Habbab – A big part of that comes down to the affordability of neighborhoods. For now, yes. I would have to take a closer look at it. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Stacked townhouses are the thing for affordable homeownership from the developers I have been talking with and from what I am hearing from the HAC. If we can allow that where it does no harm, there is a real benefit to that. If we ban it from most of the city, it is going to make it harder to achieve our goals. If we can get that in the plan, that is going to be helpful. The graphics that we saw were helpful. More graphics would be helpful. A big principle that we talked about earlier that I am not seeing in this map was buildings with the same form facing each other on the street. Commissioner Lahendro – I believe existing zoning already allows for quite a bit of additional housing density. Our focus should be on adding affordable housing. Chairman Mitchell – Density for the sake of density is dumb. Density that privileges affordability is smart. The overlay supports density for the sake of privileging density. I would like to ask the consultants to give some more thought to the overlay. We cannot do the overlay to the degree that the HAC wants to do it. We can be a little more aggressive than we have been. We still have to protect the sensitive areas. We cannot delay. Delaying this thing only makes this thing worse. We have to keep moving. We have to get something out there with the knowledge that whatever we put out there will be an iterative document that we can revise as we move forward. I want something this Planning Commission can recommend and this Council can vote on and we can move forward to get through the zoning rewrite. Councilor Snook – The only thing I wanted to add is that a lot of the questions that people have had about why there is not more information about what has worked for affordable housing. That’s another batch of information we will be getting. We will be getting an assessment of programs that we have already got a count of the number of affordable units and the number that we have generated. Some of those questions will be answered. To say that we should wait until we got that information before we move forward assumes that the answers are going to be clearly different from what we all know the reality on the ground that it would change our minds. I am assuming we will have those answers before the final would get to City Council. Let’s get this thing moving. 30 Commissioner Stolzenberg – I would really appreciate it if we got guidance of where you’re looking to go moving forward. If we have a different draft dropped on us 6 days before we vote on it, that’s not going to be conducive to getting a successful vote. Ms. Koch – We will confer with NDS. I agree. We need to get you something ahead of time. I appreciate the note from Commissioner Habbab about reaching out. Chairman Mitchell – Is there a chance before we get the next document that we have to vet it publicly? Is there a chance to vet it before we vet in a public meeting? Alex Ikefuna, Director of NDS – Let’s discuss with the consultants. We will get back to you. Chairman Mitchell – Tonight, we advised going one way and the document went another way. Had we had a chance to consult before the public, we could have coached the consultants to avoid some of the things we experienced tonight. Mr. Ikefuna – The direction you provided tonight is pretty clear. We will discuss with the consultants and integrate as much as we can. The meeting was adjourned at 11:19 PM 31