Rezoning deferred for Abundant Life Ministries property on Prospect Avenue

By Connie Chang
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Sunday, November 22, 2009

A request by the Charlottesville Abundant Life Ministries (CALM) to increase the number of dwelling units at their location at 834 Prospect Avenue location has been deferred. At their meeting on Tuesday, November 10, 2009, members of the Charlottesville Planning Commissiont said they were hesitant to move forward with a decision due to a lack of information regarding the upzoning's impact on adjacent properties.

The petition called for a rezoning from the existing R-2 Residential to McIntire-Fifth Street Residential (MR) zoning at the 834 Prospect Avenue location. The applicant’s request proposed to rezone 0.75 acres on the rear of the approximately 1.25 acre site. With the MR rezoning, CALM would be allowed an increase of 15 dwelling units to 21 dwelling units per acre by right.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091110-CPC-Abundant-Deferral

Residents surrounding the CALM site have expressed concern that the upzoning will negatively impact the adjacent low-density properties. According to the Charlottesville zoning ordinance, the purpose of the McIntire Fifth Street Residential corridor designation is “to encourage redevelopment in the form of medium-density multifamily residential uses, in a manner that will complement nearby commercial uses and be consistent with the function of McIntire Road/Fifth Street Extended as a gateway to the city's downtown area.”

The MR zoning does not require a setback for side yards or rear yards, which is a concern for both Commissioners and local residents. The current R-2 zoning requires that side yards have a minimum setback of 50 feet for non-residential corner properties and 20 feet for street properties. The maximum building height allowed with the MR zoning would also be increased from a 35 feet to a 5-story maximum height.

Commissioner John Santoski expressed his discomfort with the proposed upzoning.

"It seems we're taking a residential neighborhood and we're basically going to allow for development of something we're not even sure what it's going to be," said Santoski.

Although the applicant has not proposed a specific use for the site, potential uses could include:

• Worship space for groups of various sizes.
• Nursery facility/Pre-school facility
• 4 Habitat for Humanity housing units
• Minimum of 16 Medium density/multi-family units
• Life training center
• Job training center
• Administration facilities
• Parking
• Open space

According to BRW Principal Architect Bruce Wardell, the applicant’s intent was to "preserve the residential frontage on Prospect Avenue" and to obtain MR zoning to correspond to the adjacent property designated MR to the north of the site. With the MR zoning, the applicant would have "more flexibility" regarding items such as the disturbance of critical slopes and the impact on the existing landscape.

Commissioner Bill Emory outlined his concerns over the effect an MR rezoning would have on issues such as parking and traffic flow.

"MR allows a much larger building envelope than R-2," said Emory. "Assuming the worst case scenario with an MR, it scares me."

According to Neighborhood Planner Brian Haluska, with the current rezoning proposal, proffers would be the only way to require the applicant to adhere to certain design standards, such as implementing buffers to mitigate the impact of a larger building footprint.

Commissioner Michael Osteen and several others expressed the need for more information regarding the use of the property and for another opportunity for the public to weigh in on the project.

"The idea that we're moving towards something like this I find is a very attractive idea, but I do feel like there probably needs to be some discussions about mitigations that can be applied to this piece of the site at a minimum that would alleviate some of the concerns," said Osteen.

The item was the first time two Commissioners had to recuse themselves because of their affiliations with the project. Dan Rosensweig is Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity of Greater Charlottesville, which has interest in the property and Kurt Keesecker is an employee of BRW Architects.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 00:54 – Neighborhood planner Brian Haluska presents staff report
• 05:35 - Commissioner Michael Osteen asks whether the parcel will be in the entrance corridor
• 06:18 - Commissioner Bill Emory asks about split zoning of the site
• 07:45 - Commissioner John Santoski asks how often upzoning occurs
• 09:43 - Santoski asks why the applicant hasn't requested a Planned Unit Development rezoning
• 10:55 - Councilor Satyendra Huja comments on slope of the property
• 11:35 - Emory asks about the enclave effect
• 13:00 - Huja asks about proffers for the site
• 15:00 - Santoski asks how many dwelling units per acre would be allowed on site
• 16:00 - Executive Director of CALM, Rydell Paine presents
• 19:00 – BRW architect Bruce Wardell presents
• 23:55 - Emory asks what is allowable on site
• 25:53 - Public comment period begins
• 26:20 - Joante Brown comments
• 27:00 - Kathy Brown comments
• 28:01 - Dorothy Jones comments
• 28:55 - Rebecca Goodwin comments
• 31:15 - David Murphy comments
• 33:25 - Durenda Johnson comments
• 36:25 - Santoski comments on upzoning
• 37:38 - Emory comments on scope of review
• 43:20 - Haluska comments on setbacks for different zonings
• 46:30 - Chairman Jason Pearson asks about pedestrian access
• 47:20 - Osteen comments on public
• 51:50 - Emory asks about deferral
• 57:00 - Santoski comments on setbacks
• 1:01:35 - Wardell requests a deferral
• 1:02:40 - Huja comments on proffers for affordable housing
• 1:03:50 - Osteen moves acceptance of applicant's deferral

City Planning Commission clears way for proposed SRO facility

By Tarpley Ashworth
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, November 16, 2009

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has recommended approval for a special use permit to allow a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing facility in the City. Richmond-based Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) has proposed building a 60-unit complex at the corner of 4th Street NW and Preston Ave for both affordable housing and for the homeless.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091110-SRO-Approval

If also approved by City Council, the facility will be built on the location of a building formerly occupied by Region Ten Community Services.  So far, Council has contributed over $500,000 to bring the project to Charlottesville. 

This SRO facility was made possible by the Planning Commission in June when they voted to change the zoning ordinance to allow for SRO units.

Allison Bogdanovich of VSH explains the project to members of the Charlottesville Planning Commission

Allison Bogdanovich, Director of Housing Development  for VSH, told commissioners on November 10, 2009 that the company holds high standards for their residents and enforces regulations stringently. She said VSH will staff a full-time property manager, counselors, and security personnel for the facility. The entrance will be monitored 24 hours a day and residents will be required to swipe access cards to gain entry. Other rules will include the prohibition of overnight guests and illegal substances. She also said that VSH conducts an “intensive screening process” for applicants, which includes criminal history and credit checks.

Bogdanovich assured commissioners that VSH has had a successful record in managing other SRO facilities in Virginia. She reported that neighbors in other communities who were once opposed to living next to such facilities actually became proponents after observing their operation. She also claimed that crime was reduced in areas where SRO facilities were built and police were summoned less often.

Bruce Wardell, the project’s architect, told the Commission that the site was “perfect” for the proposed use since it was located near downtown to allow residents to travel on foot to several possible places of employment.

“To have an affordable housing option that is in fact part of the downtown community would be an option that this community hasn’t ever provided,” said Wardell.

The approval process for the special use permit was complicated by the fact that unlike other VSH properties across the state, only half the units are expected to initially be targeted towards the homeless. The other half would be priced as affordable housing units. Virginia has guidelines on the maximum amount of income residents can earn and still qualify for subsidies for an SRO unit.

The special use permit only applied to the SRO portion of the facility since the construction of standard affordable housing units did not have to go through the same scrutiny.

Virginia Supportive Housing is negotiating with Region 10 to purchase this site on Fourth Street to build a 60-unit SRO facility

City Planner Nick Rogers told the Commission that if the special use permit was eventually approved by City Council, the facility would fall under two zoning designations, each of which had distinct parking requirements. The Planning Commission could recommend in their approval of the special use permit how many parking spaces the SRO units should be allotted. But City zoning regulations stipulate that affordable housing be provided one parking space per unit.

This requirement was at odds with VSH’s preliminary site plan which depicted 27 total parking spaces. If VSH kept the 30/30 split of SRO and affordable housing units within their plan, 30 parking spaces would be required, at the very least, to meet the zoning ordinance pertaining to affordable housing.

After Commissioners  discussed the details of parking, Chairman Jason Pearson reminded his colleagues that the only issue before them was the question of granting a special use permit for the SRO units. The site plan will come back at a later date.  Commissioner Michael Osteen said the Commission’s discussion was too concerned with specifics.

“We’re suggesting our intent. Council’s got to figure it out. They’re officially doing something. We’re just making a recommendation,” said Osteen.

Commissioner Dan Rosensweig moved that the Commission approve the special use permit while recommending a parking waiver which allowed City Council to determine the final number of parking spaces needed for the 30 proposed SRO units.

The Commission passed this resolution unanimously with five votes. Commissioner Kurt Keesecker recused himself because he works for Bruce Wardell Architects.  Commissioner Genevieve Keller was not present.



TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

01:21 – Nick Rogers, Neighborhood Planner, makes project presentation
14:51 - Allison Bogdanovich, of Virginia Supportive Housing, makes presentation
17:57 – VSH video presentation
25:39 – Bogdanovich continues with presentation
28:23 – Bruce Wardell, project architect, speaks on design
38:04 – Planning Commissioner John Santoski expresses support for concept
50:35 – Rogers says that Planning Commission has authority to reduce number of parking spaces
51:53 – Commissioner Jason Pearson asks about if the parking requirements would be different for affordable housing units compared to SRO units
59:21 – Colette Hall, President of the North Downtown Residents Association, tells Commission what requirements her organization wants
1:02:04- Bogdanovich says that residents do not need to be employed but that VSH helps them get jobs
1:05:23 – Commissioner Dan Rosensweig says that he is supportive of special use permit
1:07:11 – Commissioner Michael Osteen agrees with Rosensweig about proposal
1:09:46 – Santoski says he supports the permit as well
1:12:24 – Commissioner Bill Emory says that he support the permit
1:14:33 – Pearson says he supports the permit, but wonders if site could provide landscape buffer strip between building and sidewalk
1:15:40 – Wardell says that while a buffer strip would be a nice addition, this would reduce space for parking
1:19:47 – Rosensweig moves for approval
1:25:58 – Rosensweig clarifies parking recommendation in motion
1:27:51 – Roll call vote; motion passes 5-0

Rio District Candidates Forum

On October 1, 2009, the two candidates vying for the Rio District of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors met at a Candidates Forum sponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Free Enterprise Forum. Democrat David Slutzky and Republican Rodney Thomas answered ten questions on land use, transportation, and growth in the County. The candidates also answered several questions submitted by members of the audience. The event, held at Hollymead Elementary School, was co-moderated by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum and Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091001-CT-FEF-Rio-Forum

WATCH THE VIDEO:

Rio District Candidates Forum from Charlottesville Tomorrow on Vimeo.

QUESTIONS:

Question 1:
According to the Albemarle County Strategic Plan, “the County desires to maintain a strong, sustainable economy, increase business activity in the urban cores of development areas, and ensure all citizens of the County are able to participate fully in a vibrant economy.” How would you assess Albemarle’s economic condition today? As a Supervisor, what specific strategies would you pursue to generate new jobs and economic vitality? What is your vision for the county addressing economic development opportunities?

Question 2:
How would you assess Albemarle County’s growth management strategies? What other steps would you advocate be taken to discourage development in the rural countryside and encourage development in the growth areas? Are the existing incentives adequate?

Question 3:
Should we start the planning process over on the fifty-year community water supply plan? Why or why not?

Question 4:
Albemarle County has expectations for the development community to build or pay for affordable living choices in new developments. Do you agree with that approach? How do you believe the County should address the need for not just affordable housing, but also workforce housing?

Question 5:
The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have both held work sessions on the transportation elements of the Places29 Master Plan. If there is an opportunity to receive a significant developer proffer related to Berkmar Drive Extended in exchange for an expansion of the County’s designated growth area, should that be pursued as part of the Places29 Master Plan?

Question 6:
Do you support the proposed grade separated interchanges on Route 29 as major components of the Places29 master plan? Why or why not?

Question 7:
Do you agree with continuation of the current land use tax program in the rural areas and with the revalidation process that was recently initiated by the BOS? Why or why not?

Question 8:
How do we ensure the community infrastructure—roads, sidewalks, fire/rescue facilities, libraries, etc.—is in place to support our current population, new development and redevelopment in our designated growth areas? To what degree should this infrastructure be funded by the real estate property tax, a gas tax, developer proffers, or new service districts?

Question 9:
An emotional issue that has divided the community is before the Board of Supervisors. How should an elected official balance citizen input, staff input, and the goal of making decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole?

Question 10:
How should we measure local government’s effectiveness on its strategic plan?

Audience question 1:
Both candidates have been in elected or appointed positions in Albemarle County. What letter grade would you give your constituent service from that period and how do you plan to improve it if you are elected?

Audience question 2:
With 60% of the County's budget going towards education, how do you propose ensuring Albemarle provides a quality education for its children that attracts high-paying jobs to the area? Do you plan on cutting education funds to balance the budget?

Audience question 3:
It seems like we've seen nothing but tax increases from the board. When do you see these taxes increases stopping?

Audience question 4:
What is your position on public transportation, in particular, cooperation with Charlottesville Transit Service and University Transit? What are your feelings on a Regional Transit Authority? How did you get here tonight?

Audience question 5:
What is your position on the County's current cash proffer system?

Audience question 6:
The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has had a 30% increase in visitors over the past year and a more than 6% increase in circulation at the three Albemarle locations, but also was level-funded in this year's budget. Do you intend to increase funding to support increased use?

Audience question 7:
Give us your general perspective on balancing development and the environment in Albemarle County?

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Opening introduction from Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow
• 01:45 - Rules are read by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum
• 03:20 - Question 1
• 08:30 - Question 2
• 12:40 - Question 3
• 16:30 - Question 4
• 19:15 - Question 5
• 24:30 - Question 6
• 27:40 - Question 7
• 31:00 - Question 8
• 34:30 - Question 9
• 38:40 - Question 10
• 43:00 - Audience question 1
  
• 47:45 - Audience question 2
• 52:00 - Audience question 3
• 55:40 - Audience question 4
• 1:00:30 - Audience question 5
• 1:04:20 - Audience question 6 
• 1:08:00 - Audience question 7
• 1:12:30 - Rodney Thomas's closing statement
• 1:14:40 - David Slutzky's closing statement

Samuel Miller District Candidates Forum

On September 30, 2009, the three candidates vying for the Samuel Miller District of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors met at a Candidates Forum sponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Free Enterprise Forum. Democrat Madison Cummings, Independent John Lowry and Republican Duane Snow answered nine questions on land use, transportation, and growth in the County. The candidates also answered several questions submitted by members of the audience. The event, held at Murray Elementary School in Ivy, was co-moderated by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum and Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090930-CT-FEF-Samuel-Miller-Forum

WATCH THE VIDEO:

20090930-Samuel-Miller from Charlottesville Tomorrow on Vimeo.

Question 1:
According to the Albemarle County Strategic Plan, “the County desires to maintain a strong, sustainable economy, increase business activity in the urban cores of development areas, and ensure all citizens of the County are able to participate fully in a vibrant economy.” How would you assess Albemarle’s economic condition today? As a Supervisor, what specific strategies would you pursue
to generate new jobs and economic vitality? What is your vision for the county addressing economic development opportunities?

Question 2:
How would you assess Albemarle County’s growth management strategies? What other steps would you advocate be taken to discourage development in the rural countryside and encourage development in the growth areas? Are the existing incentives adequate?

Question 3:
Should we start the planning process over on the fifty-year community water supply plan? Why or why not?

Question 4:
Albemarle County has expectations for the development community to build or pay for affordable living choices in new developments. Do you agree with that approach? How do you believe the County should address the need for not just affordable housing, but also workforce housing?

Question 5:
The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have both held work sessions on the transportation elements of the Places29 Master Plan. If there is an opportunity to receive a significant developer proffer related to Berkmar Drive Extended in exchange for an expansion of the County’s designated growth area, should that be pursued as part of the Places29 Master Plan?

Question 6:
Do you support the proposed grade separated interchanges on Route 29 as major components of the Places29 master plan? Why or why not?

Question 7:
Do you agree with continuation of the current land use tax program in the rural areas and with the revalidation process that was recently initiated by the BOS? Why or why not?

Question 8:
How do we ensure the community infrastructure—roads, sidewalks, fire/rescue facilities, libraries, etc.—is in place to support our current population, new development and redevelopment in our designated growth areas? To what degree should this infrastructure be funded by the real estate property tax, a gas tax, developer proffers, or new service districts?

Question 9:
An emotional issue that has divided the community is before the Board of Supervisors. How should an elected official balance citizen input, staff input, and the goal of making decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole?

Audience question 1:

What is your position on public transportation in Albemarle County, including a Regional Transit Authority with Charlottesville? How would you fund it? Would you support rapid public transit such as light rail or bus rapid transit?

Audience question 2:
A new economic development office and a Regional Transit Authority are two new government agencies I've heard proposed tonight. Where will you cut County government to fund these agencies, or would you propose new taxes during an economic downturn?

Audience question 3:
Would you revise the current barking dog ordinance to provide more restrictions in the entire County, and or the barking of multiple dogs?

Audience question 4:
There has been a significant retail sales tax shift out of Albemarle County. Do you believe the loss of sales tax revenue is a serious issue? How do you view neighboring counties' commercial development activities?

TIMELINE FOR VIDEO AND PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Introduction from Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow
• 01:45 - Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum reads the rules  
• 03:00 - Question 1
• 10:20 - Question 2
• 18:45 - Question 3
• 25:00 - Question 4
• 32:30 - Question 5
• 40:00 - Question 6
• 48:00 - Question 7
• 52:30 - Question 8
• 1:00:00 - Question 9
• 1:09:00 - Audience question #1
• 1:16:30 - Audience question #2      
• 1:22:45 - Audience question #3 
• 1:28:15 - Audience question #4    
• 1:35:00 - Madison Cummings' closing statement
• 1:38:15 - John Lowry's closing statement
• 1:40:35 - Duane Snow's closing statement

Council seeks to use federal money to build new affordable housing units

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Charlottesville City Council has set its priorities for what affordable housing projects should be first-in-line to receive federal funding in the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2010. Council indicated it wants to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to support projects that seek to add to the City’s affordable housing stock.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090817-CC-CDBG

Council’s discussion of priorities came during an August 17, 2009 public hearing on both CDBG and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funding. Both streams of federal funding come from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

In the current fiscal year, the City received $533,551 in CDBG funds and another $168,246 in HOME funding. The City then reviewed requests from non-profit organizations to determine what programs will receive the money. In August 2008, Council decided that a priority would be placed on workforce development, economic development and neighborhood stabilization.

For the next fiscal year, Melissa Celii, the City’s Grants Coordinator, asked Council if they wanted to continue with those priorities. While the exact level of funding for next fiscal year is not yet know, Celii predicted it would be at least as much as what was received this year.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he wanted to see more money going into the construction of new affordable housing units. Councilor David Brown wanted to know that the difference was between CDBG funding and the City’s existing affordable housing fund.  Celii said the major difference was that CDBG funds can only go to qualified non-profit organizations, and that there are only a few in this area. However, anyone can apply for funds from Charlottesville’s affordable housing fund.

Celii also asked Council to designate a priority neighborhood to receive $200,000 in CDBG funds that do not have to go through the City’s proposal submission process. For the past four years, Council has selected the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) to be the “priority neighborhood.” Celii told Council that if it followed the pattern of the last 20 years, the Fifeville neighborhood would be the next one to have a turn at being the CDBG designee.

However, Councilor Huja said because the City’s own funding for affordable housing projects could be reduced next year, he would be inclined not to select a priority neighborhood. Councilors David Brown and Julian Taliaferro agreed, as did Mayor Dave Norris.

“I’m sensitive to the concern that we’re taking off the top $200,000 automatically out of a shrinking pot of money which leaves less for other organizations,” Norris said. He said by not designating a priority neighborhood for CDBG funds, the City would have more flexible to fund its overall priorities.

Crescent Halls is managed by the Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority

However, Councilor Holly Edwards said she had hoped CRHA could have received a fifth year of being the priority neighborhood so that important infrastructure repair work could be completed in the City’s public housing units. The City’s CDBG Task Force had recommended selecting a new neighborhood because the CRHA has approximately $400,000 in unspent CDBG funds.  When Edwards requested more information about that fund balance, Celii said that CRHA had built new elevators at Crescent Halls and installed new roofs at Westhaven. Norris said all of that money has been designated to projects in the City’s public housing stock, and the public should not think the money was going to waste.

CDBG guidelines only allow for 15% of a locality’s funding to be spent on social programs. Edwards asked if it would be possible to “be creative” with that money to promote workforce development. She wanted to have a better sense of how those program were actually working and asked Celii to return back before Council with some hard numbers.

“I’d like to have some specified outcomes,” Edwards said. “We put a lot of money into social programs but I’d like to see us move to the next level of being accountable and seeing how we can really see some accomplishments with the people we say we’re serving.” Specifically, she said she wanted Celii to report on how many get employed, how many people received new skills or certifications, and if people’s incomes increased as a result of their participation. That information should come back before Council as they weigh in on the affordable housing proposals that will be received by the City in advance of next year’s budget development.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Staff report from Melissa Celii, the City’s Grants Coordinator
• 05:30 -  Councilor Satyendra Huja indicates he does not support designating a priority neighborhood
• 09:30 – Councilor Holly Edwards says she supports CRHA receiving priority funds
• 12:30 – Edwards asks about 15% cap for social programs
• 16:30 – Huja wants CRHA to come forward with proposal on play areas in public housing stock

County Supervisors receive annual housing report

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 7, 2009

Albemarle County participates in efforts to increase the number of affordable living choices within its borders through working with non-profit partners such as the Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA) and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). Ron White, the County’s Director of Housing, gave the Board of Supervisors a report on his office’s activities during the previous fiscal year at their meeting on August 5, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090805-BOS-Housing

Download Ron White's Housing Report

Here are some of the highlights of his report:

• The County’s Homebuyer Assistance Program helped 18 families, down from 38 in the previous year. White said the decrease is due to fewer people buying homes as well as tighter restrictions on mortgages
• County funds made up 14% of the $7.5 million expended by the County and its partners on affordable housing initiatives. The rest came from a mixture of private and other public funds
• Over 450 families in the County received rental assistance
• The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) rehabilitated 27 houses at a cost of $572,443
• The Piedmont Housing Alliance provided financial counseling to 169 Albemarle families. 91 successfully purchased a home, and 57 families sought help with potential mortgage defaults.
• For the past six months, the County has had no families stop using rental vouchers. Without that turnover, White said the County is unable to issue vouchers to new families. He added that if new funding does not materialize, the County may have to eliminate vouchers for some families currently receiving them.
• The County received $700,000 from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to support the creation of the Crozet Meadows Project. The project begins construction next week and will rehabilitate 28 existing homes to Energy Star standards and will build 38 new units for seniors.
• The 88-unit Treesdale Park complex off of Park Street has received preliminary notification that it will be eligible for low-income tax credits.

Jennifer Jacobs

The Board also heard a report from Jennifer Jacobs, the interim director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). She said AHIP can only continue to help people in need with the continued support of the County.

“Safe and stable housing and safe and stable families are a priority if what we want is a safe and stable community,” Jacobs said.

The County’s Housing Committee will hold a strategic work session on August 13, 2009 to discuss how to implement the County’s housing policy over the next five years.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Presentation from Ron White, Director of Housing for Albemarle County
• 12:30 – Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) wonders how many houses in the County are deemed unsuitable
• 15:00 – Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) asks how LEAP program and AHIP’s rehab programs could complement each other
• 16:50 – Presentation from Jennifer Jacobs, Interim Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program 

City Council allocates nearly $1 million to affordable housing projects; SRO project has received total of $500,000 from City

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, July 22, 2009

At their meeting on July 20, 2009, the Charlottesville City Council allocated $929,143 from the Charlottesville Housing Fund to various projects. One of the beneficiaries is Virginia Supportive Housing, which has now received a total of $500,000 to purchase a site near downtown for a proposed 60-unit Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facility.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090720-CC-Housing

The allocations came from money previously set aside in both the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets.
In FY2009, the Charlottesville City Council invested $1.4 million into the Charlottesville Housing Fund. Non-profit organizations that work on increasing the community’s stock of affordable housing submit applications to fund various projects. Most of the money appropriated for FY2009 has now been allocated.

On May 18, 2009, Council made the following allocations totaling $855,000.

• $100,000 for Public Housing Association of Residents
• $50,000 to pay for a new housing position in City government
• $100,000 for 608 Ridge Street project
• $120,000 for HOME Match
• $125,000 to help Virginia Supportive Housing purchase land for SRO facility
• $50,000 for Piedmont Housing Alliance for Monticello Vista project
• $20,000 to Piedmont Housing Alliance to pay for foreclosure assistance
• $15,000 for the Thomas Jefferson Community Land Trust
• $100,000 for Habitat for Humanity to pay for infrastructure
• $175,000 to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) to pay for rehabilitation work

The allocation for AHIP was reduced by $144,637 at Council’s meeting on July 6, 2009. That funding was given to Habitat for Humanity  for the creation of two LEED-certified units as part of a development on Paton Street. 

On July 20, 2009, Council was asked how to spend the FY2009 balance of $545,000. Here are the recommendations made by Jim Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Development Services:

• An additional $150,000 for Virginia Supportive Housing (SRO)
• $100,000 to Region Ten for rent subsidies and counseling
• An additional $20,000 for HOME Match
• $50,000 for the Charlottesville Community Foundation and Piedmont Housing Alliance for down payment assistance
• $50,000 to help AHIP pay for emergency repairs
• $2,143 to Region Ten for cover a shortage from FY08
• $85,000 for Small Rehab/Handicap Access
• An additional $20,000 to pay for the City’s new housing position
• $10,000 for utility work for EcoMod4 being built on Elliot Avenue
• $2,000 to pay for Housing Advisory Committee meeting expenses

Tolbert also began preparing Council for the process of allocating money for FY2010. Council appropriated $1 million to the fund for this Fiscal Year, and Tolbert had the following recommendations, which were approved by Council.

• $225,000 to VSH to complete City’s $500,000 commitment
• $100,000 to pay for the second year of the Housing Leader position
• $100,000 to pay for AHIP’s housing rehabilitation project

That leaves a balance of $575,000 for FY2010 that Tolbert said would be handled through the usual process where non-profits submit proposals for the City’s consideration.

Virginia Supportive Housing receives $500,000 to pay for purchase of site

Virginia Supportive Housing is negotiating with Region 10 to purchase this site on Fourth Street to build a 60-unit SRO facility

With these allocations, Virginia Supportive Housing has received a total of $500,000 from the City to help them purchase a site for a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facility with 60 units. Earlier in the meeting, Council approved a zoning ordinance change to allow SRO units to be built in more locations throughout the City.  VSH is looking to purchase the “Fourth Street Station” building from Region 10 for $1.5 million, according to City Attorney Craig Brown.

Councilor David Brown wanted to know what other localities in the region are contributing to the SRO project.  Norris said the total development costs for the SRO are estimated to be in the $8 million range. In addition to the $500,000 being sought from the City, VSH is looking for $1 million in commitments from Albemarle County and other surrounding localities.  Norris said VSH expects to raise additional money from foundations, state funds, federal low-income tax credits and bank loans.

Norris said the SRO will also need to find funds to pay for ongoing operations, currently estimated at $468,000 a year.  On that front, he said Albemarle County is considering offering up between eight and fifteen Section 8 rental vouchers, and Region 10 has agreed to contribute some as well.  To give a sense of perspective, Norris said the County gets about 400 vouchers a year.

“Our hope is that between Albemarle County and Region 10, they will contribute a significant majority of the annual operating funds for this project,” Norris said.

Brown said he was skeptical that those promises would materialize into commitments. He said he wanted to put a contingency in the resolution to say that City funding depends on participation from Albemarle County and other regional partners. Norris said he did not have a problem with that.  The resolution was changed to say that the City expects to see these commitments.  [Earlier this year Charlottesville Tomorrow published an in-depth comparison of the investments, inventory, and proffers for affordable living choices made in both Albemarle and Charlottesville]

City to create new position for housing

With these allocations, a total of $170,000 has been committed to pay for a new City position that will have the title “Housing Leader.”  Councilor Satyendra Huja asked why the amount was so high. Tolbert said the additional funding for the housing position is to make sure there is at least enough to pay for two years. The person hired for the position will supervise the City’s affordable housing strategies. Mayor Dave Norris said it was his hope that the person hired will be able to generate enough revenue to pay their own salary within that two year period.

City to pay for utility work for EcoMOD project

Site of UVA's EcoMOD4 project on Elliot Avenue

The University of Virginia’s fourth EcoMOD project house is being built near the corner of Ridge/5th Street and Cherry Avenue. The house is being built for the Habitat for Humanity. However, there have been unexpected issues regarding clearing the site for foundation and utility work.

“What they’re finding is stuff that the City many, many years ago put on that lot which we didn’t even own at the time,” Tolbert said. “I think it’s a reasonable thing for us to help clean it up.” The cost of cleaning it is estimated at $30,000.  Councilor Satyendra Huja suggested increasing the amount for the EcoMOD4 house from $10,000 to $25,000, which was approved by Council.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Tolbert begins reading through recommendations of how to use the funds
• 06:23 – Councilor Satyendra Huja asks about the ECOMOD house funds
• 07:30 – Councilor David Brown asks why the additional $20,000 is necessary for the housing position
• 10:40 – Brown asks question about regional participation for SRO, leading to discussion about what City expects from Albemarle County
• 25:40 – Tolbert begins discussion of FY10 CHF
• 27:15 – Huja questions why $170,000 is needed for the City’s new housing position

Council indicates support for up-zoning Longwood Drive in Charlottesville

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, July 9, 2009

Longwood Drive is a cul-de-sac, but right-of-way is available for a connection to Moseley Drive

On July 6, 2009, Charlottesville City Council held the first of two readings on a proposal to rezone portions of Longwood Drive near the Fry’s Spring neighborhood from R-2 Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD). That designation would allow for the applicant, Neighborhood Properties, to demolish 18 existing residential units in order to build 43 units in a series of townhouses. Another 16 units would be renovated, increasing the total amount of housing on the road by 25 units. The existing units are rental properties priced for low-income families. Many of the new units would be constructed for sale. After a half-hour of discussion, Council unanimously approved the proposal’s first reading.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-Longwood

The Charlottesville Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning on a 4-2 vote at its meeting on January 13, 2009. The majority cited a concern that the City would lose some of its stock of affordable rental housing, as well as concerns about the increased amount of traffic that would be generated on Longwood Drive, a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Michael Osteen recused himself from that meeting because he worked with the developer to create the plan.

The applicant is offering the following proffers:

• A pedestrian trail from Longwood Drive to Jackson Via School
• A new pedestrian trail connecting Longwood Drive to the Rivanna Trail
• $20,000 to help pay for improvements of existing path from Jackson Via to Rivanna Trail
• New parking spaces would use pervious paving methods to reduce stormwater runoff
• 15% of the dwelling units would be classified as “affordable”
• Applicant would donate $50,000 to the Charlottesville Housing Fund
• Any resident displaced by demolition would be given re-location assistance if they move into another unit owned by Neighborhood Properties
• Four rental units would be made available to those with Section 8 vouchers for a period of five years

City Planner Brian Haluska said that staff recommended approval of the proposal because the conceptual plan meets the City’s goal of increasing economic diversity within neighborhoods. However, Haluska cautioned that he was aware that because Longwood Drive is already considered a low to middle income neighborhood, this project could be seen as gentrifying the neighborhood by introducing home ownership.

Richard Spurzem of Neighborhood Properties

Richard Spurzem, a developer with Neighborhood Properties, noted in his testimony that this is the first time he has sought a rezoning in the City in his twenty-nine years of working in Charlottesville’s rental housing industry. He began buying up properties on Longwood Drive in 1998, and said he has taken a number of steps to improve the neighborhood since that time, including constructing speed humps, planting additional trees and installing streetlights.

“What Mike Osteen designed with [the conceptual] plan was to eliminate this 1970’s suburban type cul-de-sac development that was developed by Dr. [Charles] Hurt,” Spurzem said. Right now the street solely consists of three bed-room townhouses, and the rezoning would be an important step towards improvement. Spurzem said the new Longwood Drive would have a greater diversity of housing types.

Several people spoke during the public hearing, mostly in favor of the project. Many of them were dressed in yellow Neighborhood Properties t-shirts.  Brian Hogg, a resident of the Fry’s Spring neighborhood and a member of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), said he thought the project was a good one because it would increase economic diversity in the neighborhood, and because the proffers being offered would benefit the community as a whole.

However, some residents of Longwood Drive spoke out in opposition of the project. Cindy Stratton has lived on the street for 22 years, and said she was concerned about the impacts that will be created by the additional people.

“The parking is already deplorable, and we’re unable to handle that, so increasing units in my mind is not logical,” Stratton said. Stratton also said Neighborhood Properties has not done enough to reach out to neighbors on surrounding streets to communicate the scope of the project.

Wali Zakee, a homeowner on Longwood Drive, echoed Stratton’s concerns about bringing more people onto a street that is already overloaded with traffic. He also said the public trail might be a nuisance for property owners.

Colette Hall of the North Downtown Residents Association  had asked if a second entrance would be required as part of the rezoning to PUD. Brian Haluska said that usually depends on circumstances. He said sometimes residents of adjoining neighborhoods campaign against second entrances out of a new PUD out of a fear of additional cut-through traffic. In the case of Longwood Drive, the developer R.L. Beyer owns a nearby right-of-way called Flint Drive that has not yet been built.

“If that road is ever to be constructed, there will be a second way in and out of this neighborhood,” Haluska said. Spurzem said it was his belief that R.L. Beyer would one day build that road.

During Council’s discussion, Councilor Satyendra Huja said he thought the new development would improve the neighborhood and would providing more affordable housing. Councilor Julian Taliaferro agreed with Huja.

Councilor Holly Edwards said that she supported the idea of improving the neighborhood but was not sure if a rezoning to PUD was really necessary. She said she wanted more amenities for children and wanted an ongoing financial commitment to maintaining the new trail connections. Edwards also wanted Spurzem to make a larger commitment to the City’s housing fund. She also suggested that the developer speak with officials at Jackson Via School to see how they can transform the neighborhood into one that offers outdoor activities for children.

Huja said he wanted to see a play area depicted on the site plan when it comes to the Planning Commission.  Spurzem pointed him in the direction of a “tot lot” that is currently included in the conceptual plan.

Councilor David Brown said he thought the proffers submitted with the project sets a standard by which Council should judge future rezonings.

Mayor Dave Norris said his opinion of the project had improved since the Planning Commission, but added that he still thought there were some concerns about parking that still needed to be worked out.

If Council grants the rezoning at its next meeting, the developer will then need to submit a site plan to NDS. After that, the Planning Commission will be asked to review that plan to see if reasonably conforms to the conceptual plan as well as the comprehensive plan.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Mayor Dave Norris calls item to order
• 01:20 – Staff report from City Planner Brian Haluska
• 06:45 – Presentation by Richard Spurzem of Neighborhood Properties
• 11:40 – Public hearing comment from Brian Hogg of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association
• 14:15 – Public hearing comment from Longwood Drive resident Cindy Stratton
• 16:25 – Public hearing comment from Colette Hal of the North Downtown Residents Association
• 17:15 – Public hearing comment from Wali Zakee, a homeowner on Longwood Drive
• 20:50 – Public hearing comment from Cal Tate, Longwood Drive resident
• 22:00 – Public hearing comment from Anita, Longwood Drive resident and Neighborhood Properties employee
• 22:50 – Public hearing comment from Allison Ruffner of Graves Street
• 24:40 – Public hearing comment from Cynthia Anderson of Longwood Drive
• 25:11 – Public hearing comment from Denny Howard of Longwood Drive
• 26:00 – Norris asks Haluska to follow up on concern from Colette Hall regarding two-street access for PUDs
• 29:00 – Norris asks question about parking
• 32:20 – Councilor Brown asks a question about the proffers
• 33:17 – Councilor Satyendra Huja expresses his support
• 34:40 – Councilor Holly Edwards says she needs more in order to vote for the rezoning
• 37:10 – Councilor Brown indicates his support for the project
• 38:10 – Norris indicates his support for the project
• 39:00 – Huja asks for a playground or play area to be included with site plan

Charlottesville moves a step closer to single room affordable housing

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Single room occupancy (SRO) housing units have been touted as one way to address the community’s homeless issue by providing an affordable studio apartment to qualified individuals. Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH), a Richmond-based non-profit, has announced its plans to build a 60-unit facility somewhere inside Charlottesville City limits. City Council has allocated $125,000 to support their efforts.

However, the City’s zoning code does not necessarily accommodate SRO facilities. On one hand, the units would need to be on a parcel of land that allowed for high residential density. On the other, VSH offers support services that would not necessarily be allowed in residential zoning districts.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090706-CC-SRO

Developed by VSH, Gosnold Apartments opened in December 2006 to serve the homeless population in the Tidewater area (Source: VSH)

The Charlottesville Planning Commission narrowly recommended making changes to the City’s zoning ordinance with a 3-2 vote at its meeting on June 9, 2009. Under their changes, a certain percentage of units could be open to more than one person. The Commission also supported a recommendation by VSH that each unit contain a bathroom and kitchen area, despite the comments of Commissioner Michael Osteen who said that financing those units may prove to be problematic.

The Commission also recommended adding the University Medium Density (UMD) and University High Density (UHD) zoning districts to a list of where SRO units could be built. However, City Planner Ebony Walden said because the public hearing notice did not specify that the two districts were being considered, they could not be added to the ordinance without a new round of public hearings.

The first reading of the ordinance change was before the City Council during their meeting on July 6, 2009 as part of the consent agenda. Councilor David Brown asked for it to be removed and considered by the Council as a whole. As a result, Walden made a staff report explaining the Planning Commission’s conversation.

Councilor Brown said he wanted another public discussion given the close vote by the Planning Commission, as well as the absence that night by two Commissioners. Brown said he thought requiring kitchens and bathrooms in each unit may be creating something different than what was envisioned when SROs first entered the public conversation on homelessness.

“The early discussions we had about this were not about the SRO becoming a vehicle to self-sufficiency,” Brown said. “[They were] to address a pressing housing need. And that pressing housing need was seen to argue for having the option to create units without the [kitchen and bath] requirement.” Brown said he wanted to see flexibility in the zoning code allowing for other SRO developers beyond VSH.

On the matter of kitchens and bathrooms, Norris said that while VSH is proposing building units with those features and that the City did not need to enshrine their business model in the zoning code.  He said he could live with flexibility. Councilors Holly Edwards, Satyendra Huja and Julian Taliaferro all said they wanted kitchens and baths to be required for each unit.

Councilor Huja said he wanted the ordinance to be changed to allow SRO facilities to be built in the UMD and UHD districts. Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said he had a lot of concern with that idea.

“I can see some of our creative developers using this to circumvent the density regulations and put more units in a place than we intended, and they’d have nothing to do with the homeless,” Tolbert said.  Council eventually sided with Tolbert, and for now, SRO facilities will not be permitted in the University districts.

The second reading and adoption of the SRO ordinance will come back on the consent agenda for the meeting on July 20, 2009.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Staff report from City Planner Ebony Walden
• 04:10 – Comment from Councilor David Brown
• 05:54 – Comment from Councilor Satyendra Huja
• 06:30 – NDS Director Jim Tolbert on suggestion that SROs would be appropriate in the University districts
• 09:30 – Huja said he supports requiring kitchens and bathrooms for each unit
• 11:30 – Norris asks whether Council should open up SRO’s to UHD and UMD districts
• 12:30 – Norris asks whether Council should require each unit to have kitchens and baths

Charlottesville planners narrowly recommend ordinance to allow single room affordable housing

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, June 15, 2009

On June 9, 2009, the Charlottesville Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend a change in the City’s zoning ordinance to allow for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities to be built in more locations throughout the City. While the facilities could conceivably be constructed today, the zoning change would clear the way for them to be located throughout the city with on-site support services. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090609-CPC-Planning-Commission

City Planner Ebony Walden addresses the Planning Commission

SRO facilities are seen by many, including Mayor Dave Norris, as a “permanent solution” for the homeless by providing low-cost rental units. In anticipation of the zoning ordinance being approved, Council voted on May 18, 2009 to give Richmond-based Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) $125,000 in start-up funds to find a location to build a 60-unit SRO facility somewhere within the City limits.

“Our City Council vision, comprehensive plan and consolidated plan all point towards creating more affordable housing options for all of Charlottesville residents,” said City Planner Ebony Walden. “Providing a zoning classification for SRO facilities is a means by which the City can encourage alternative affordable housing options.”

Walden said a developer could build single-room facilities under existing regulations, but an apartment complex with 60 units would require more parking than necessary for housing for low-income and no-income individuals. The draft ordinance under consideration by the Commission included the following provisions:

• only one person would be allowed to live in each room
• each unit must contain a bathroom and a kitchen
• each room would have a maximum area of 450 square feet
• the facility must provide counseling, job-training and other forms of support
• all SRO facilities would require a special use permit (SUP) to allow for public hearings
• applicants must provide outlines of operating policies
• facility must be close to a public transit line

Walden said she had received many public comments from residents concerned that being located nearby an SRO facility would decrease the value of their property and would attract an “unwanted segment of the population.” She said she had sent a letter to all of the City’s neighborhood association presidents.

Only one person spoke during the public comment period. Colette Hall of the North Downtown Residents Association said her organization wanted the units to be open to Charlottesville residents first, an SRO facility must have a resident director, and bathrooms should be provided with each unit.
Planning Commissioners Cheri Lewis and Michael Osteen were both opposed to the requirement that mandated that only one person per room. Osteen asked Walden why she felt this regulation was necessary.

“Seventy percent of homeless people are single people, so this type of housing is really for single adults,” Walden said.

Lewis said she was certain that not allowing couples to share an SRO unit would be a violation of federal housing rules against discrimination. She understood that VSH’s business model only supported single-occupant rooms, but that the City’s zoning ordinance should allow more flexibility if another SRO-builder submitted an application. Osteen said the 30% of homeless that are not single would be discriminated against if the zoning code prevented them from living in an SRO with a spouse or friend. He said that at a minimum, 15% of SRO units should be open to married couples or other partnerships.

“I think [the ordinance] is unnecessarily restrictive,” Osteen said. “I understand the primary discussions came from a client who has a business model that works for singles and I applaud that. But I think that there are other models out there.”

Commission Vice Chair Michael Farruggio brokered a compromise, and the Commission settled on Osteen’s idea that up to 15% of units in an SRO facility could be open to two people in one room.

Commissioners Cheri Lewis, Michael Osteen and Michael Farruggio

Another point of discussion was whether each unit should have its own bathroom and kitchen. Commissioner Mike Farruggio was adamant that this requirement be left in, and pointed out that VSH would only build units with those amenities. Lewis reminded Farruggio that the Commission should not be tailoring an ordinance just for VSH. She said the zoning ordinance should allow a food preparation area, but not require it.

“There may be some redevelopment or readaptive opportunities here where the units really can’t be retrofitted to have kitchens within them,” Lewis said. She reminded the Commission that the recent report of the joint City-County task force on affordable housing recommended the possibility of converting old motels to SRO units. Osteen warned that the Department of Housing and Urban Development might not subsidize the cost of each SRO unit if they contain both a kitchen and a bathroom.

“Section 8 financing of low-income housing really says a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and a bathroom,” Osteen said. “An SRO unit is not required to have either one although [it] may have one or the other. They set a threshold amount they will pay for these units. All the [cost] on that is not going to get paid for… So if we’re looking for a model that’s going to pay for a unit, we need to have the most affordable unit that is being subsidized.”

Commissioner Genevieve Keller said because a goal of an SRO is to give homeless people a way to find their independence, a bath and a kitchen would be required. The Commission’s debate at times got somewhat heated as they debated government subsidy levels. Farruggio tried to broker another deal and suggested 15% of units could share bathroom and kitchen facilities.

“This is the area where we seem to have the most disagreement,” Farruggio said. Lewis objected to altering the ordinance on the fly as a Commission. Eventually, Farruggio said there was a majority leaning towards requiring both a kitchen and a bath and a motion was crafted to reflect that consensus.

During a discussion of how close the SRO facilities should be to bus lines, University of Virginia Architect and ex officio Planning Commissioner David Neuman suggested requiring proximity to transit, given that bus lines can change unexpectedly. He said JAUNT could serve SRO facilities in any location in the City if need be.

When it was time to vote on the motion, Lewis said she was disappointed that she could not vote in favor of the ordinance. Osteen also said he could not support the ordinance because it was not broadly defined.

“As much flexibility in the unit type would allow the greatest success and utilization [of SRO’s] in the community,” Osteen said.

Commissioners Jason Pearson and Dan Rosensweig were not present for the meeting. The draft ordinance will come to Charlottesville City Council at a future meeting.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 – Vice Chair Mike Farruggio introduces the item
• 01:40 – Staff report from Ebony Walden
• 11:00  - Commissioner Cheri Lewis asks Walden for her response to a letter from Jason Halbert of the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority
• 12:30 – Commissioner Michael Osteen asked if there were any SRO ordinances in the nation that allowed two people to live in a room
• 17:00 – Commissioner Genevieve Keller asks why the City is doing an ordinance change when VSH told the Commission in May that there is likely enough capacity for one SRO facility
• 22:30 – Commissioner Bill Emory asks question about locating SRO’s in areas that already have low-income housing
• 25:00 – City Councilor Huja asks if two people can live in the SRO unit
• 28:15 – Huja asks why density in an SRO could exceed underlying zoning
• 32:00 – Huja asks about parking requirements for existing elderly and public housing
• 35:00 – Public hearing comment from Colette Hall of the North Downtown Neighborhood Association
• 37:10 – Lewis asks why a provision to put at least 1,320 feet between each SRO facility was deleted
• 39:00 – Lewis asks if the Hope Community Shelter, another organization that may construct an SRO, has commented on the ordinance
• 40:15 – Osteen suggests going through the ordinance issue by issue to debate
• 40:40 – Farruggio asks Commissioners for their position on the one-person per room policy
• 42:00 – Lewis objects to defining SRO’s as requiring only one individuals per room, followed by similar objections by Osteen
• 44:30 – Keller says she can see Lewis and Osteen’s
• 45:50 – Commission discusses unit size and whether or not to include kitchens and baths
• 51:30 – Commissioners debate whether or not government funding should dictate whether or not there will be a kitchen and a bathroom for each unit
• 54:30 – Commissioners switch debate to what zoning districts will be allowed to have SRO facilities
• 1:01:45 – Commissioners discuss how close SRO units should be to bus stops
• 1:11:00 – Comments from David Neuman on SRO facilities
• 1:15:10 – Lewis asks if shelter care is already defined in the zoning ordinance
• 1:16:30 – Discussion of whether SRO units could share space with a homeless shelter
• 1:24:00 – Discussion returns again to SRO units and their proximity to transit
• 1:25:30 – Discussion returns again to what zoning districts should
• 1:26:30 – Farruggio attempts to compromise on the one-person rule
• 1:36:30 – Missy Creasy reads the motion built on the consensus
• 1:43:30 – Commissioners vote 3-2