Political problems on Pantops

This article is the second in a four-part series on the future of Route 250 published jointly by The Daily Progress and Charlottesville Tomorrow. Part two is published here by permission of The Daily Progress. Part: One, Two, Three, Four

By Rachana Dixit
The Daily Progress
Monday, November 30, 2009

Albemarle County resident Hank Bourguignon has a blunt assessment of the traffic situation outside of the home he has lived in for more than 10 years: nothing will be done, and the problem will persist.

“I will be in my grave before there are solutions to these problems,” said Bourguignon, who lives in the Fontana subdivision on Pantops Mountain and sits on the board of directors of its homeowners association.

Determining how traffic on U.S. 250 on and around Pantops in Albemarle, and subsequently on the U.S. 250 Bypass in Charlottesville, can be relieved is in a deadlock not only from a lack of finances.

City and county leaders for years have been unable to compromise or take unified steps to alleviate the congestion that, all of those involved agree, is only going to get worse, especially as large developments such as the new Martha Jefferson Hospital set up shop.

“[The] Pantops area is booming, and yet, even before a lot of the recent growth, there already were bottlenecks there,” Mayor Dave Norris said. Referring to county officials, he added, “They never should have allowed the rate of growth we’re seeing in that part of the county.”

In 2000, 30,000 vehicles traveled daily on the road between the city’s eastern edge and Route 20, a 0.2-mile section. That number increased to 52,000 last year, according to Virginia Department of Transportation traffic counts.

County officials say that to help traffic on U.S. 250 on Pantops, two major things should be looked into - building another crossing over the river into the city and widening the bypass.

“The city needs to get over it,” said David L. Slutzky, chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. “That route needs to be widened.”

The Pantops master plan says housing units nearly tripled since 1996 and roughly 300 acres were developed or redeveloped for commercial use. Like the other documents done for county growth areas, it includes an extensive list of transportation recommendations intended to allay congestion on U.S. 250.

It also acknowledges that regional coordination and funding will be necessary to address traffic on Pantops and on U.S. 250 to the Fluvanna County line.

“That’s Richmond’s job, to fund the necessary infrastructure,” Slutzky said of the state government’s role to provide financing for transportation projects.

Interchange expected to help flow on U.S. 250 Bypass A $32.5 million interchange project in Charlottesville is likely to be the only major road improvement that will be seen on U.S. 250 or the U.S. 250 Bypass anytime soon. The structure, to be located at the U.S. 250 Bypass and McIntire Road, will function as the endpoint of the controversial Meadowcreek Parkway. The 2-mile road begins at East Rio Road in Albemarle and will connect to the interchange in Charlottesville by going through McIntire Park. While City Council members recently voiced concerns about pedestrians and bicyclists having sufficient amenities as a part of the interchange project, they are expected to take a vote on the final design before the end of the year. A timeline projects that the Commonwealth Transportation Board will approve the interchange this winter, and construction would begin in the spring of 2011. City officials say the mostly federally funded road improvement will help to allay bypass traffic, which has been steadily creeping up. “Traffic is growing at a pretty good rate on that road, and it’s going to deteriorate as long as it keeps doing that,” said Jim Tolbert, director of Charlottesville’s Neighborhood Development Services. Charlottesville traffic projections for 2030 - which assume that the city’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway will be built - estimate that 25,075 vehicles will travel per day on the bypass between U.S. 29 and Hydraulic Road, that 48,750 will move between McIntire Road and Park Street and that 50,350 vehicles will drive daily between Locust Avenue and High Street. Those figures are an increase from the 23,000, 36,000 and 38,000 vehicles, respectively, seen on those segments on average last year. Tolbert said that not having a typical intersection at the U.S. 250 Bypass and McIntire Road will help congestion there somewhat by not allowing it to get worse. But, he said, “it won’t do anything for the flow at Free Bridge.” The city expects that 56,400 vehicles will move daily across Free Bridge roughly 20 years from now. And officials agree that they do not know how that bottleneck, and others along U.S. 250, will ultimately be relieved. “I don’t know that there is an easy answer to any of this,” Mayor Dave Norris said.

According to a list of projects from UnJAM 2035, the area’s long-range transportation plan, the U.S. 250 corridor improvements that are called for in the master plan alone would cost $42.1 million. Adopted in March 2008, the plan says improvements should provide for a Hansen Mountain Road connector; additional sidewalks and bike paths; more transit; widening U.S. 250 on Pantops (but not to more than six lanes); and another Rivanna River crossing into Charlottesville, among a slew of other ideas.

A 2004 study on the eastern part of U.S. 250 also suggested that park-and-ride lots be built at Interstate 64 and at Route 616.

According to building activity reports, Albemarle County issued building permits for 835 new residential units in the Pantops area between 1999 and this year’s third quarter, which ended in September. The largest number came in 2001, when the county issued permits for 11 single-family homes and 265 multi-family units.

Additionally, according to county development activity reports that were kept from 1999 to 2003, which gauged serious development interests, there was nearly 770,000 square feet in major non-residential site plans for Pantops signed off on by county leaders.

“It’s a bottleneck now, obviously,” Bourguignon said of Free Bridge. “If there were a crossing of the river somewhere behind where State Farm is, going over to downtown Charlottesville, you’d divert so much traffic. But nothing will be done.”

Grant Cosner remembers when there was no U.S. 250 Bypass and when the same stretch that runs through Pantops was only two lanes.

“High Street was also two lanes, of course,” Cosner said on a recent afternoon from his auto body shop.

The Cosner Bros. Body Shop has been at its Charlottesville High Street location, where Free Bridge is in plain view, for 53 years. In that time the business has witnessed a substantial evolution of the corridor, as growth on Pantops has exploded and thousands use U.S. 250 to go to work, to shop and to get home.

“I think it’s all been good. I also think the bypass was a really good thing,” said Cosner, who takes U.S. 250 in his 50-minute roundtrip commute to and from the Shadwell area.

VDOT’s average annual daily traffic counts show that while traffic volumes are high on the U.S. 250 Bypass in Charlottesville between Emmet Street and the city’s eastern line, the vehicular increases vary depending on the segment of road.

In 2000, the 0.42-mile segment of the bypass from Hydraulic Road to Dairy Road saw 39,000 vehicles per day, and the figure increased to 43,000 last year. Generally, excluding the Free Bridge area, counts jumped between 1,000 and 4,000 vehicles from 2000 to 2008.

Jim Tolbert, Charlottesville’s director of Neighborhood Development Services, said congestion on U.S. 250 is certainly an issue because of the bottlenecks residents sit through at particular times of the day.

“Is it a massive issue? No, but 250 is an area where traffic is increasing. We know that, so it’s got to have some attention,” he said.

Charlottesville officials, however, say they have no interest in taking measures such as widening the bypass. Tolbert said he would love to see the city and county come to a mutually acceptable solution, “But I don’t think there’s any interest in a solution that just puts the burden on city streets.”

“We are not going to be the conduit of traffic for the whole region,” said City Council member Satyendra Huja, who sits on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization.

The refusals are mutual. City officials say they want to see Albemarle pursue an eastern connector, a road whose feasibility was jointly studied by the localities. After studying the road for nearly two years, the recommended alignment to relieve the most congestion was to connect Route 20 with Rio Road by going through Pen Park.

But last year, the county Board of Supervisors decided to hold off on studying the road more until it had more data on traffic patterns.

The City Council eventually followed suit, even though city staff recommended the county study two of the proposed routes in more detail and that the route move forward if located outside city limits.

After getting new data, “maybe we can take another look at it,” said Albemarle Supervisor Kenneth C. Boyd, who said he is not opposed to building an eastern connector.

Some city and county leaders have relentlessly advocated for a more robust transit system that is not downtown Charlottesville-centric, yet a lack of state funding and the inability to raise large amounts of local revenues have, for now, essentially tabled that idea, as well.

Steve Williams, executive director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, said achieving agreements between the two localities must begin with a neutral party doing technical work at the staff level that all parties can trust. Once that is in place, the localities must define the issues they face and the benefits they could accrue from various solutions.

Williams said, in his view, the traffic troubles that plague Free Bridge and parts of Pantops are not a capacity problem, but one that could be helped through intersection improvements. On expanding transit, Williams said, “There’s just not enough capacity for transit to be the entire solution.”

Slutzky said that the county has largely addressed what it can about the future of U.S. 250 through its multiple master plans, which all have their own transportation recommendations. But he has suggested doing a master plan for the entire area as a way to help officials reach the consensus needed to solve the area’s traffic problems.

“It would be our product, our common solutions, about what would work best,” he said. But concerns about how much such a plan would cost, and limited local resources to collaborate regionally, made it so the idea never got traction.

“Nobody ever talks about it,” Slutzky said.

Norris said to solve the problem, he thinks it will have to come from those residents who have to constantly deal with the pressures of growth and its effect on U.S. 250. Once they voice their concerns and demand that action be taken, maybe then elected officials would come around.

Pantops resident Bourguignon only sees more talk.

“Let us be frank. How long has it taken to get the Meadowcreek Parkway off the ground?” he asked. “They’ve been talking and talking and talking and planning and planning and planning and fighting and fighting and fighting for what, 35 or 40 years?”

Transit authority future depends on new appointments

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The fate of a proposed Regional Transit Authority (RTA) could depend on who is selected in January to represent the City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on two regional transportation bodies. Since a joint meeting in February 2008, local officials have been pursuing the creation of a new authority to operate and expand local bus service.

Supervisor David Slutzky, a chief proponent of the RTA, was defeated in his bid for re-election to Albemarle’s Rio District seat earlier this month. Slutzky sits on both the MPO policy board and a committee created to guide the transition from a Charlottesville-owned bus system to one operated by an independent RTA. The RTA working group last met in May of this year.

Routes 5 and 7 serve Albemarle County and run twice an hour from 6:00 AM to midnight, Monday through Saturday. Route 7 is one of only two routes that run at all on Sunday.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed a bill authorizing Charlottesville and Albemarle to create a transit authority, but a companion bill that may have provided a funding source for enhanced service did not make it out of committee. That legislation would have authorized a referendum in which city and country residents would have voted on a sales tax increase to pay the RTA’s operating and capital costs. Among the questions to be answered is how much it will cost to implement the new authority and how assets of the Charlottesville Transit Service would be transferred to the RTA. Earlier this year, the MPO had considered spending $40,000 to re-hire VHB, the firm who originally developed the RTA plan, to provide an estimate as well as to answer other logistical and governance questions.

The MPO Board agreed at their meeting on Monday that city, county and MPO staff should instead conduct that work.

“At this point I think we ought to get these questions answered, and find out where we are,” said Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett). The MPO also agreed to reconvene the RTA working group in the new year.

However, City Councilor Satyendra Huja said further decisions should wait until the next City Council and Board of Supervisors appoint replacements for Councilor Julian Taliaferro and Slutzky on the MPO. Huja, who serves on the RTA working group with Councilor Holly Edwards, said he would like to remain on the MPO but would give up the seat if another Councilor was more interested.

A decision on who will replace Taliaferro will not be made until the new Council meets in January. Edwards said in an interview that she is interested in joining the MPO. She added she is a supporter of the RTA concept but has reservations.

 “The RTA is like having a new toy for Christmas but without any of the batteries,” Edwards said.

Councilor-elect Kristin Szakos is also interested in serving on the MPO. In an interview before the election, Szakos said she feels the city and county should work together but was not yet convinced they needed to combine forces into an RTA.

“I think we do need to work closely together, because we have a lot of shared needs and a lot of shared resources that we can use,” Szakos said in September.

The Board of Supervisors will not appoint its new representatives to the MPO until January. Rooker is interested in serving another term, but his continued tenure is a matter for the full Board to decide.

Supervisor-elect Rodney Thomas (Rio) said before the election that he wants to study if the RTA can be funded using the revenue sharing money the county pays to the city. Supervisor-elect Duane Snow (Samuel Miller) said his support for an RTA depends on whether there are other resources for funding transit

“I would exhaust all the efforts to get the Commonwealth to pay attention to its infrastructure and their responsibilities,” Snow said.

RWSA adopts schedule for dam replacement to satisfy state regulators

By Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) will receive permission from state regulators to allow for the two dams at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir to continue operating through the end of May 2010. On Tuesday, the RWSA Board of Directors adopted a schedule for replacement of the dams, even though a final decision on their future will not be made until next spring at the earliest.

The two dams have been operating under conditional permits from the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) dam safety division due to their age and concerns about their structural viability in the event of a major flood. The upper dam was built around 1885 and the lower dam was built around 1908.

Under the community water supply plan adopted by Albemarle and Charlottesville in June 2006, the dams are to be replaced by one taller dam downstream that would raise the water pool by 45 feet. The new dam is only one component of the 50-year water supply plan.

In September 2008, the new Ragged Mountain Dam’s preliminary cost estimates increased from an initial $37 million to a range between $56.5 million and $99 million (in 2010 dollars).   While the new estimates were not accepted by the RWSA, water officials did seek the opinion of an independent panel of dam experts and afterwards decided to hire a new engineering firm to design the dam.

In response to the escalating cost projections, Mayor Dave Norris and other city councilors have raised the possibility of repairing the lower dam to address DCR’s safety concerns, or alternatively to build on top of the 1908 dam by adding just 13 feet.

In order to receive the new conditional permit, the RWSA was required to submit a new timeline for replacement or repair of the dams. RWSA officials opted to use a schedule which indicates preliminary design of the new dam will be ready by August 2010, with construction to be completed by October 2013.

City Councilor Holly Edwards said she understands the reason for the new schedule, but has reservations about how the schedule might be interpreted by opponents of the water supply plan.

“There is concern the schedule implies consent for the new dam when there’s still a lot of information out there that we have not yet obtained,” Edwards said.

At first, Edwards asked for consideration of the new schedule to be deferred until January so Council could have time to discuss the matter. RWSA Executive Director Tom Frederick pointed out that the current operating certificate for the dam expires at the end of November.

Despite her concerns, Edwards voted to approve the new schedule after said the Board’s approval was not in any way to be seen as an endorsement of the community water supply plan.

Also at Tuesday’s meeting, the RWSA Board deferred consideration of a proposal to have the same firm that is designing the new dam conduct a study on repairing or expanding the Lower Ragged Mountain Dam.

Under the terms of the proposal, Schnabel Engineering would be paid a fee of up to $188,000 to conduct what project manager Chris Webster called a ‘condition assessment’ of the structure.

Betty Mooney with the group Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan said she thought Schnabel should not be given a contract to study the existing dam because of their existing relationship with RWSA.

“I do see this as a conflict of interest,” Mooney said. “They’re designing the new dam and I don’t feel the public can trust information coming from them.”  Mooney said she was also opposed to raising the dam by any amount and said the community will not need the amount of water that the RWSA has claimed will be necessary by 2055.

Webster said his firm had an obligation to remain unbiased.

“As a professional engineering firm, it’s our duty to provide what we think is the best recommendation for the client,” Webster said. He added he is not prepared to provide even a preliminary cost estimate for adding on to the dam because his engineers do not yet have enough data.

“Due to all of the background information that we currently have, the dam is in somewhat poor condition and we feel a fairly rigorous study would be necessary to determine whether or not it could be used beyond its current life,” Webster said.

Dan Johnson, vice president of GEI Consultants in Boulder, was a member of the expert panel assembled by RWSA earlier this year to review engineering data and a 1913 safety report for the lower dam.  He confirmed in an August interview that the independent panel did express what Frederick has described as “significant concerns” about any construction taking place on the 1908 dam.

“Work could be done, but you would have to lower the reservoir [water level],” said Johnson. “There was discussion about raising the existing dam… but there is no great cost benefit and you end up with an old dam integrated with a new dam. With an entirely new dam downstream, you can keep operating the reservoir, and that is very valuable.”

A vote on whether to accept Schnabel’s proposal was deferred until the RWSA Board’s meeting in January. City Manager Gary O’Connell said Council will take up the proposal and other water supply issues at its first meeting in January.
 

UVA’s Sandridge details $265 million in current construction projects

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, November 23, 2009

Construction activity at the University of Virginia will remain at an increased level over the next two years before dropping off, according to Chief Operating Officer Leonard Sandridge. He detailed how UVA is spending $265 million in 2007 dollars from its capital budget in construction projects this year.

“We have got as much construction as we’ve ever had going on,” Sandridge said. “We are predicting we will spend more on new construction next year.”

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091119-PACC

Leonard Sandridge

Sandridge briefed Charlottesville and Albemarle leaders at a meeting last Thursday of the Planning and Coordination Council, a joint group which discusses community infrastructure and growth. Next year, UVA will spend $308 million as a slew of projects approach completion.
Sandridge said construction activity will then slow down because a number of large capital projects will have been completed.  He forecasts only $224 million in capital spending in FY2012.

One obstacle is the dwindling amount of state funds for higher education. Sandridge pointed out that no state funds have gone to a 72-bed expansion of the University Medical Center, a new $37.4 million education building (Bavarro Hall), or four new dormitories being built on Alderman Road at a cost of $90.5 million.

Research needs are driving at least some of the construction. Both a new $68.8 million engineering building (Rice Hall) and a new $86.6 million arts and science building (so far unnamed) is part of the University’s push to add 200,000 square feet of research space. Sandridge said every effort is being made to maximize space available on Grounds. 

Another privately funded project is a $3.6 million expansion of the Davenport Field baseball stadium. Sandridge said the sport has become incredibly popular, and is bringing people to UVA who would not have ordinarily come into contact with the school.

In the coming weeks, ground will be broken on a new $12.7 million rehearsal space on Culbreth Road for the UVA Marching Band and other musical activities. This project is being paid for by a gift from philanthropist Hunter Smith.

Aerial view of the South Lawn Project. Jefferson Park Avenue runs through the middle of the picture. (Source: UVA)

Sandridge said one difference between this period of growth and a similar period in the early 1970’s is the higher aesthetic expectations today.

“There was a willingness to accept a quality of construction and appearance that we do not have the appetite for today,” Sandridge said.

University-related construction is not restricted to Central Grounds and the Medical Center. The University of Virginia Foundation, which purchases and manages off-grounds properties on behalf of the school, is also in the midst of expansion at its research parks.

Tim Rose, foundation director, said the Fontaine Research Park is now fully built out and awaiting rezoning by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors before expansion can begin. That action is expected in the next year. A second application to expand the North Fork Research park by 30 acres will also come before the Board of Supervisors.

Earlier in the PACC meeting, Albemarle County officials briefed members on the impact the expanding Rivanna Station will have on the community. In all, five DIA functions are being relocated from Bolling Air Force Base to Albemarle County, according to Community Relations Manager Lee Catlin. In all, the DIA has identified 828 positions that will be moving here.

“These are very sophisticated high-technology jobs that are going to be coming down to the community,” Catlin said.

Pace Lochte, UVA’s director of economic development, said that a “miniature intelligence community” is developing around NGIC and the North Fork Research Park. She said NGIC and other intelligence agencies are interested in using UVA as a resource.

“The sky’s the limit in terms of what the community and the DIA can do together,” Lochte said.

“This is the kind of development and economic improvement that every community in this country would just die to have it come into their community,” Sandridge added.

List of construction projects at UVA:

• Claude Moore Education Building– operational by May 2010
• Bavarro Hall  – complete by August 2010
• First two buildings of the South Lawn Project operational by January 2010, rest in July 2010
• Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center – operational by April 2011
• Four new Alderman Road dorms to be built in two phases (2 in May 2011, 2 in June 2013)
• Information Technology and Communication Data Center – operational by May 2011
• Bookstore expansion – operational by summer 2011
• Rice Hall (engineering building) on Whitehead and Stadium Road – operational in August 2011
• College of Arts and Sciences Research Building (currently unnamed) – operational by August 2011
• Rehearsal space on Culbreth Road – operational by 2011
• 72-bed intensive care unit expansion at UVA Medical Center – complete by January 2012

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - PACC Meeting called to order by Chairman Ken Boyd
• 01:15 - Lee Catlin begins presentation on DIA personnel coming to Rivanna Station
• 15:20 - Boyd asks Leonard Sandridge if UVA is establishing a career ladder training program
• 20:30 - Boyd asks Susan Stimart if an effort will be made to attract skilled technology workers
• 22:00 - PACC begins update of UVA capital projects
• 22:15 - Tim Rose of the UVA Foundation begins presentation
• 25:05 - Pace Tochten, UVA's director of economic development, talking about UVA's interaction with DIA
• 33:00 - Sandridge gives update on UVA capital projects
• 1:05:00 - Acting City Manager Ric Barrick asks about the Arts Gateway at corner of Emmett Street and Ivy Road
• 1:08:00 - PACC discusses what topics to discuss in 2010

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

Council wants more pedestrian and bike access at Meadowcreek Parkway interchange

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, November 18, 2009

City Council has directed its staff to work with the firm designing the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange to add a second sidewalk to the project. That feature was removed as part of an effort to lower the cost and scope of the interchange, as were other design elements to separate pedestrians and cyclists from traffic on McIntire Road and the Parkway.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091116-CC-Interchange

A rendering of the design shown to Council shows how the interchange would look looking south towards downtown Charlottesville.(Source: RK&K)

In June 2008, Council selected a grade separated diamond interchange as its preference for a final design. A steering committee made up of citizens and elected officials had recommended an oval roundabout after spending two and a half years debating the finer points of how the interchange should serve not only cars but pedestrians and cyclists.

Part of the reasoning behind Council’s decision was an effort to reduce the scope of the project to reduce costs and to limit the impact to McIntire Park and other cultural resources.

“It’s been a challenge to fit this interchange within the four quadrants with all of them having important community resources,” said City transportation planner Jeanette Janiczek. “We’ve been directed by City Council and the public to limit the impacts on the environment, the neighborhoods, historic resources as well as the park.”

Council made several design decisions at that meeting in June 2008. The drawing for their selected alternative original showed an interchange that had a much larger scope according to Janiczek. She told them the bridge would have been 223 feet long and 30 feet high, and the interchange would have taken up about 8.5 acres of McIntire Park.

A decision was made to move the trail to the western side of McIntire Road in order to reduce the number of stream crossings, and to shorten and lower the bridge’s span. Under this alternative, only 7 acres of McIntire Park would be affected. However, as a result, the pedestrian trail was placed at-grade with the on-ramps that will lead to the 250 Bypass.

Nearly 150 people commented as part of the design public hearing in held in October, according to Janiczek.

“The size of the interchange was not questioned, but the public did comment that the pedestrian and bicycle facilities were not sufficiently accommodated,” Janiczek said.

Under the new design shown to Council on Monday night, the trail would continue the Schenck’s Branch greenway north, where it would cross through the two traffic signals and underneath the 250 bridge

A birds-eye rendering of the interchange design shown to Council (Source: RK&K)

Councilor David Brown wanted to know what happened with a pedestrian bridge across the parkway that had been depicted early on in the design process. Janiczek said when the decision was made to use traffic signals as opposed to a roundabout, it was thought pedestrians could safely cross through the interchange using signalized crosswalks. She added the bridge would have required many switchback trails that in order to meet the Americans with Disability Act requirements. That was deemed to be too expensive.

Mayor Dave Norris said he was disappointed that the trail shown with the interchange plans does not continue north past the Vietnam Memorial. Janiczek said a north-bound trail could not co-exist with the Meadowcreek golf course, the fate of which has not yet been determined.

“Trails normally aren’t conducive to golf course uses, yet [the eastern half of McIntire Park] hasn’t been master planned and we don’t want this roadway project to drive how the rest of the park is planned and designed,” Janiczek. That master plan, which will determine the future of the golf course, will be developed next spring.

Councilor Satyendra Huja asked if an eastern trail could be added as well. Janiczek said she would work with design firm RK&K to make the requested changes.

Norris said he would be voting against the interchange, but that he wanted the design to be the best possible.

“If we’re going to build it, we need to do it the right way,” Norris said.

Janiczek said she would be prepared to return before Council with an amended design at their next meeting on December 7, 2009.

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

”Hydraulic flyover” to be removed from VDOT corridor study

By Sean Tubbs & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The last of three unexpected road proposals for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area included in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) U.S. 29 corridor study will be dropped from the final report to be completed later this month.  Charlottesville City Council asked at their meeting Monday that the proposal to connect U.S. 29 to the 250 Bypass via a partially elevated roadway near the Kroger at Hydraulic Road be eliminated from consideration. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091102-CC-Flyover

In October, VDOT announced it had removed both the Leonard Sandridge Road extension and the “Eastern Bypass” from the study.  All three proposals have come under criticism from local officials who said they were not consulted about them nor was there data presented to support the recommendations.

Springer displayed several conceptual drawings depicting how the flyover would evolve (Click for larger image)

This design will have the appearance of a ’mixing bowl’ type intersection which we do not believe is appropriate for our community,” reads the letter from Mayor Dave Norris, which is addressed to Butch Davies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).

The letter states that 10 City businesses would be affected by the road and interchange, costing the City over $868,000 a year in taxes. Council also told Davies that it feels the real issue with congestion on U.S. 29 is the proliferation of traffic lights north of Charlottesville.

“I can assure you [the interchange] will not be in our final report unless the City chooses to support it,” said Charles Rasnick of VDOT. 

However, the project manager hired to oversee the project had the opportunity to explain the reason why the concept was under consideration. Joe Springer of the Parsons Transportation Group told Council that many of the transportation improvements recommended in Albemarle County’s Places29 Master Plan would not do enough to address congestion on U.S. 29 between Hydraulic Road and the U.S. 250 Bypass.

Springer told Council that the flyover would help open up U.S. 29 to redevelopment in the City between Hydraulic Road and the 250 Bypass (Source: VDOT)

“There is the project to add an additional lane southbound between Hydraulic Road and extending on to the Route 250 bypass on to Barracks Road,” Springer said. “We do believe that is needed but it doesn’t adequately address long-term needs.”

Instead, Springer said the alternate was suggested as a way to remove through-traffic from U.S. 29 for that stretch of highway, allowing the existing U.S. 29 to serve local traffic. He added that the project would depend on the long-term redevelopment of the area.

“We do believe that it would provide some benefits both in terms of land use and in terms of being able to downgrade the existing stretch of U.S. 29 to make it more livable and walkable,” Springer said.

Councilor Julian Taliaferro said he understood that the existing interchange of U.S. 29 and U.S. 250 is a cause of congestion, but that he was troubled by the new concept.

“The issue of the chokepoint has been created by lack of action to build a bypass and to build connector roads in this area,” Taliaferro said. “It seems to me like a rather short-sighted solution to send this through the City.”

Rasnick told Taliaferro that the concept of the new interchange would not work to help relieve congestion unless the Leonard Sandridge Road extension was also considered. However, that concept was removed in October at the request of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.

“Our feeling was that you needed both of them to be working together,” Rasnick said.

Councilor David Brown questioned whether any business owner would be willing to take a risk to develop properties that had an elevated highway above them. Mayor Dave Norris wanted to know how the concept could be included in a draft study with absolutely no input from City officials.

A final report will be released later this month. It will then go before the CTB for approval.

Local election results

In the races covered by Charlottesville Tomorrow during 2009, the following candidates were elected tonight:

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

• Independent Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett)
• Republican Rodney Thomas (Rio)
• Republican Duane Snow (Samuel Miller)

Charlottesville City Council

• Democrat Dave Norris
• Democrat Kristin Szakos

Thank you to all of the candidates who participated in our interviews and candidate forums during this important local election.

City planners evaluating how developers might contribute to off-site mitigation efforts; City role in a transfer of development rights program also discussed

By Connie Chang & Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Commissioners Bill Emory, Genevieve Keller, Jason Pearson and Dan Rosensweig discuss their priorities before choosing study areas

In their third retreat in the past two months, the Charlottesville Planning Commission has directed staff to study how the City might create something called the Charlottesville Mitigation Exchange (CMX) and to assess how the City might participate in a transfer of development rights (TDR) program with Albemarle County. Staff will also study the potential of protecting the Rivanna River corridor through the City.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091027-CPC-Retreat

The idea of the Charlottesville Mitigation Exchange was born after the Commission debated whether the City should be required to daylight culverted streams in exchange for a critical slopes waiver for a new fire station on Fontaine Avenue. There is currently no provision in the City’s code that would allow for a developer to be required to make off-site mitigations in exchange for a rezoning, site plan approval, special use permit or critical slopes waiver. Commissioner Kurt Keesecker suggested the CMX could operate as a mechanism for the City to prioritize specific environmental clean-up projects.

Keesecker drafted the following proposal:

“Charlottesville is a city that has seen virtually all of its vacant, non-impacted, privately held land fully developed in the years past. The remaining undeveloped parcels may have a variety of characteristics that would impact the City if they were fully developed to their potential. Mitigation of these impacts within the bounds of the single parcel is becoming increasingly difficult and/or expensive as available parcels become smaller and smaller. At the same time, the City has a variety of properties (both publicly and privately held) that have characteristics that should be preserved but there are no formal agreements or easements that would protect these areas against development in the future… The solution might be the creation of a mitigation exchange that would allow private parties to reach agreements to protect some areas of the City in exchange for the development of other portions of the City, on a site by site, proffer by proffer basis…”

Deputy City Attorney Richard Harris said the proposed CMX would not be legal unless enabling legislation were passed allowing Charlottesville to accept proffers for site plan and special use permits, an authority the City does not have. Additionally, he said proffers are intended to be used to make a rezoning of a particular property more palatable.

Chairman Jason Pearson said that he liked the idea because it was radical, but he doubted the City would be able to get the General Assembly to grant the necessary enabling authority.

Jim Tolbert, the City’s Director of Neighborhood Development Services, said the creation of a “mitigation checklist” would help educate developers about what improvements are expected for approvals. However, that idea would only apply to individual properties, and not off-site locations.

Commissioner Genevieve Keller said she thought the CMX might be a good tool for controlling land use across the City, and could help protect historical and physical assets that she said make Charlottesville a desirable place to live.
   
Transfer of Development Rights

The Commission also discussed whether the City should participate in a potential TDR system with Albemarle County, where Charlottesville would be one of the receiving areas for County development rights.

The General Assembly has passed legislation allowing Albemarle County to establish a TDR system, but the Board of Supervisors has so far declined to move forward with implementation.

Keesecker pointed out that a TDR system would also require a clearinghouse, or TDR
bank. He suggested that neighborhoods that want less density could potentially sell their development rights to downtown developers who want to add extra floors to buildings.

Tolbert was skeptical that a TDR system would work in Charlottesville, where some zoning districts already allow up to 200 units an acre.  He also said he wasn’t sure Charlottesville residents would automatically support more density.

Commissioner Keller said the time to implement a TDR system would have been before West Main Street was up-zoned to allow more development in 2003. She also said if the City were interested, it could test a TDR system by starting first in neighborhoods with historic protections in place. Keller said a TDR system might make more sense if Charlottesville and Albemarle County were one jurisdiction.

Commissioner Dan Rosensweig, who suggested the idea for study, said he intended the idea to be something for the City to have in place for use in several decades as redevelopment occurs.  Rosensweig participated in a 2008 discussion on TDRs facilitated by the Weldon-Cooper Center for Public Service.

Chairman Jason Pearson. Above his head is the list of potential study areas. Commissioners got two votes and indicated their preferences with the use of red dots

Pearson said in a conversation he had with Albemarle County Planning Commission Chairman Eric Strucko, he learned that development in the County’s growth areas has not been as dense as planned.

“Where the development is occurring, they’re not getting build-out to the maximum densities so nobody is squeezed,” Pearson said. He added he was concerned that adding a TDR system might create an extra barrier for developers.

Keesecker said the TDR system would allow developers looking to add units to have the incentive of purchasing additional rights in order to build taller buildings.

The Commission was less interested in the TDRs, but agreed to keep that possibility open for discussion when they meet with the Albemarle County Planning Commission in December.

“I think this gives [staff] a road map for the types of things we’d like to be working on,” Pearson said. “I don’t think any of us want to just sit around and talk and not get something done… Maybe it does result in much more productive conversations with the development community about the way development happens in Charlottesville.”

Commission passes on “form-based zoning”

Commissioner Genevieve Keller made a request to study whether the City should switch to different system of zoning based on “form-based codes.” Under this system, codes depend more on what the physical structure of a block should look like, as opposed to separating out different types of uses. Currently the City can only regulate design in entrance corridors and historic districts. 

“I think there would be a greater comfort level in the city if people knew what things would look like,” said Genevieve Keller.

Tolbert said when the City’s zoning code was rewritten in 2003, that idea was considered but was taken off the table because it was felt that design reviews would become too lengthy.  He said that certain streets, such as Monticello Avenue through Belmont, could be added to the list of entrance corridors in order to require more design scrutiny.

However, the idea did not receive enough votes to be studied in the coming year.

Other items that staff will work on for the Commission’s consideration include:

• Rewriting of the City’s critical slopes ordinance
• Improving the planning process in the Belmont neighborhood
• Rewriting the “dance hall” section of the City zoning code
• Study of the Cherry Avenue corridor
• Review of the process for prioritizing sidewalk additions
• Review of entrance corridor guidelines
• A request from the Fry’s Spring neighborhood to downzone some residential properties

Tolbert said the dance hall review is to establish clear guidelines on what establishments are allowed to offer music and which ones are not.

“We made a list the other day and came up with 35 places that have music in them,” Tolbert said. “Maybe five of them have been allowed legally. The others have morphed and happened and one definition doesn’t fit all of them.”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 – Chair Jason Pearson opens with discussion of location of fire station on Fontaine Avenue
• 08:00 – Planning staff Ebony Walden provides status report on tree canopy initiative
• 15:05 – Planning staff Melissa Celii provides status report on density discussion
• 17:23 – Planning staff Nick Rodgers provides status report on Rivanna River discussion
• 23:15 – Planning manager Missy Creasy discusses revised proposed work plan items
• 27:24 – Pearson discusses slope waiver review language
• 39:45 – Creasy opens discussion of potential work plan items
• 43:50 – Commissioner Kurt Keesecker asks whether Charlottesville Mitigation Exchange (CMX) is legal
• 53:27 – Jim Tolbert discusses transfer of development rights
• 1:07:04 – Pearson discusses form-based codes
• 1:17:10 – Pearson discusses density in relation to transportation of all types
• 1:20:56 – Pearson discusses alignment of the comprehensive plan
• 1:30:15 – Commissioner Dan Rosensweig discusses affordable housing item
• 1:36:00 – Keesecker discusses environment-sensitive development
• 1:47:14 – Commissioners vote on priorities for work plan
• 1:51:00 – Discussion of CMX