Charlottesville Planning Commission considers ways to improve tree canopy initiative

By Connie Chang & Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 28, 2009

Although the City has already surpassed its goal of having a tree canopy of 40%, the Charlottesville Planning Commission continues to debate ways to build upon that goal and further protect the City’s trees. Commissioners discussed the issue at a work session on August 25, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090825-CPC-Tree-Canopy-Final

The City’s Department of Parks and Recreation created an Urban Forest Management Plan to help achieve the 40% goal, a key objective called for in the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The tree canopy initiative was one of seven priorities outlined during City Council’s retreat in September 2008. In April 2009, Mayor Dave Norris presented a “Proposal for a Greener Charlottesville” in order to increase the City’s tree canopy from 32% to 40% coverage.

However, Park and Trail Planner Chris Gensic revealed to Council on June 15, 2009, that analysis of aerial photographs of the City indicated that the tree canopy was already at 46%, but that not all neighborhoods and areas of the City were consistent.

Since then, City staff have further analyzed data on the City’s tree canopy coverage to zero in on specific neighborhoods and entrance corridors where the percentage could be increased. Staff investigated each neighborhood and compared them against American Forestry Standards for urban, suburban, and central business district areas. Staff provided the Planning Commission with maps showing tree canopy coverage based on areas such as schools, parks, and watersheds. For instance, Preston Avenue and West Main Street are particular areas where the canopy could be increased.

Staff has also been working with city arborist, Tim Hughes, to develop a “best management practice” manual for preserving and protecting trees during construction.

Neighborhood Planner Ebony Walden said the next step will involve determining areas where trees should be planted and noted that staff have looked at models from around the country to develop a manual for design standards.

Commissioner Bill Emory, who serves on the Urban Forest Management Plan committee, expressed concern that executing a tree canopy initiative of this magnitude may lead to an unfavorable outcome. He said the City commissioned a street tree plan in 1975, but it was never implemented. Emory emphasized the value of using tools such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and incorporating input from the community to make the urban forest management plan one that will work for the next twenty years.

In moving forward with the tree canopy initiative, Commissioners agreed that discrepancies among statistical figures will need to be addressed in order to determine the most effective planting locations. For example, within the Hydraulic Road entrance corridor, the percentage of canopy coverage seemed questionably high for an area composed mostly of pavement. There was also uncertainty as to whether calculations for other parcels within the City included street trees in the percentages generated. Once these figures are verified, the City will have a better picture of the areas of most concern and can carry on to the next step of the initiative.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

01:00 – Neighborhood Planner Ebony Walden provides status update on tree canopy initiative
03:23 – Jason Pearson welcomes new Planning Commission members John Santoski and Kurt Keesecker
06:28 – Planning Manager Missy Creasy begins Planning Commission introductions
10:24 – Jason Pearson discusses work plan priorities
11:35 – Ebony Walden continues overview of tree canopy initiative
12:24 – Bill Emory provides comment
19:40 – Jason Pearson poses process-level questions to staff
20:03 – Ebony Walden responds to question
23:32 – Dan Rosensweig expresses concern over statistical numbers generated by staff
24:29 – Ebony Walden responds
24:45 – Planning staff member Nick Rogers provides comment
27:30 – Michael Osteen provides comment
29:48 – Jason Pearson provides comment
33:25 – Genevieve Keller poses question over examining projections on health of tree canopy
34:23 – Ebony Walden responds
35:20 – Bill Emory provides final comment

Tolbert discusses future of planning Charlottesville

By Julia Glendening & Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Over the past several years, there has been a concerted effort to increase population density in Charlottesville while also maintaining the City’s green space. As part of the “Urban Places, Rural Spaces” exhibit at the Charlottesville Community Design Center, on May 27, 2009 Jim Tolbert of the City’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services gave a talk entitled “How Our Creative City is Growing Smarter.” 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090527-Tolbert-lecture

Tolbert's lecture covered the challenges and benefits of planning Charlottesville's future

Tolbert's lecture described the evolution of community planning and explained how his department, the City Planning Commission and the community will determine the next steps for developing Charlottesville. He explained some of the community ideals that factor into decisions reached by the Planning Commission with staff guidance.

“Mixed use development, economic opportunity, housing, strong neighborhoods, neighborhoods that would be self sufficient and mixed, accessibility, public transportation, and trees, parking, green space,’ Tolbert said. “Those were the things that we felt should guide us.”

Common themes were the ability to link areas to downtown Charlottesville, increasing the density of housing in the downtown area, and continuing mixed-use development. During his talk, Tolbert detailed actions staff has taken to implement these goals. 

Tolbert also commented on the effectiveness of these strategies. He believes that Charlottesville now has “a mall that is healthier” because it features a mix of uses in one location. He ended his talk by listing two challenges he feels need to be addressed:  making Charlottesville more urban; and reducing pressure from University students on local housing and traffic.

Download Jim Tolbert's presentation

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:30 - Opening comments
• 03:00 - Description of 1994 Sustainability Accords
• 10:10 - Description of Ideal Community Factors determined by citizens
• 15:00 - Comments on how Planning Commission reaches goals
• 18:30 - Description of Charlottesville neighborhoods
• 24:30 - Comments on how goals will be translated into actions
• 30:00 - Comments on whether these strategies have worked
• 33:50  - Closing remarks
• 35:00 - Question: Why have some projects been discarded and will more follow?
• 36:00 - Question: What changes are being considered for downtown parking?
• 37:35 - Question: What steps are being taken to increase support of local businesses?
• 40:45 - Question: How do you decide issues about commercial businesses?
• 46:15 - Question: Where do you see Charlottesville growing in the future?
• 47:50 - Question: What are the major items that are being dealt with right now?
• 50:15 - Question: Can you elaborate on Belmont zoning
• 54:00 - Question: How will Charlottesville increase road sharing and the safety of bikes?
• 56:30 - Question: Will utilities be put underground?
• 57:00 - Question: How are sites double checked and enforced?
• 1:00:00 - Question: What will be done to develop Preston Ave area?

MMM Design selected to oversee new Belmont Bridge design work

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

An artist's rendering depicting the span of the Belmont Bridge through downtown Charlottesville (Source: MMM Design)

Charlottesville City Council received a very brief update on the replacement plans for Belmont Bridge at their meeting on April 6, 2009. The project has a current cost estimate of $9 million, according to Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert. Construction will not begin until at least 2014 when the City is expected to have received enough funding for the project.  It has accumulated state funding and federal commitments to allow for preliminary engineering work by MMM Design. MMM is the company that oversaw the design of the downtown mall renovations.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090407-CC-Belmont-Bridge

“From an engineering standpoint, any engineers could design a bridge,” Tolbert said. “But because of this bridge and because of where it’s located… the aesthetic pieces of this and the functionality are really the important things.” Tolbert added that MMM Design has proven their understanding of the need to make the bridge more than just about cars. They will now begin a design process that Tolbert said would last at least two years. He said a special effort would be made to reach out to the Belmont neighborhood.

Panelists discuss sustainable development and site selection

The James River Green Building Council hosted a panel discussion on February 9, 2009 entitled Site Selection and Sustainable Development. The meeting, which took place at the Charlottesville Community Design Center, brought together planners, developers, public officials, and activists to share ideas about sustainable building practices and the social and cultural issues underlying the way communities develop land.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090210-Green-Building

Planner Lyle Solla-Yates served as moderator and explained some of the benefits of urban infill over development of rural areas on the fringe of cities. New construction that reuses building stock and urban public infrastructure is more sustainable than construction that requires new infrastructure and more environmentally intensive transportation use. However, urban redevelopment is currently not the norm, even for LEED certified buildings, because of the added expenses and barriers involved in infill projects.

Developer Richard Price of the Folsom Group sees a “reshaping of the American Dream” as the underlying necessity for sustainable site selection. A low-density lifestyle has become embedded in our culture.  Price said sprawling development is already here, and the challenge will be in finding a way to redevelop suburban housing stock that he considers likely to become future slums. Price’s research is in how to integrate a highly connective natural ecology with a built environment that is currently very fragmented. This involves finding links in order to make people-centered and ecological connections between existing suburban developments.

Another panelist, Albemarle County planner Elaine Echols, explained the principles of the County’s Neighborhood Model and how it relates to LEED-ND. This involves pedestrian-orientation, mixed-use centers, options for alternative transportation, buildings of human-scale, parks and open space, and clear boundaries with rural areas. The goal is to “create livable, vibrant places for residents and the preservation of rural areas.”

Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner in the University of Virginia’s Office of the Architect, spoke about the new University land use plan. The Office of the Architect is working on connecting the various parts of campus and keeping all new development on grounds. Academic/Mixed-use and Housing/Mixed-use are the two zones in which infill development will be accommodated. She sees physical connectivity on campus as a way to encourage mental connectivity of academic disciplines.

Left to right: Stratton Salidas, Richard Price, Julia Monteith, Dan Rosensweig, Karen Waters, Sean Dougherty, Elaine Echols

City Planning Commissioner Dan Rosensweig acknowledged the tragic ecological consequences of the suburban development practices over the last several decades. Rosensweig said Charlottesville is at an “interesting existential impasse” because it needs to decide whether to stay as a “big town” or become “small city.” Rosensweig is personally pushing for more density, mixes of uses, and regional cooperation. There has been some success to this end in recent years, particularly with a new zoning ordinance to allow higher density around the University. Rosensweig believes that a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) system could be a helpful tool toward achieving this goal, and the city could benefit from being more involved in this discussion with Albemarle County.

Planner Sean Dougherty of Octagon Partners sees Urban Growth Boundaries as an effect tool in ensuring pockets of growth. He said that while Albemarle County has a boundary, there is a problem when development can leap-frog into other jurisdictions such as Greene County that do not have the same regulations in place. There needs to be regional or state-wide cooperation.

Karen Waters, director of the Quality Community Council, brought up the dilemma of gentrification. She said infill development may be  green, but there must be a way to avoid displacing current residents with new growth. People often fight new urban redevelopments because “the people who come in may not be the people who were there before.” She asked the question of how social sustainability can be included with environmental sustainability.

Local activist Stratton Salidas said he thinks the most important factor in sustainable development is the difference between building for pedestrians versus automobiles. Sustainable land use policies are important, but they will never be successful without pedestrian-oriented transportation infrastructure. Zoning should be loosened up, he said, to encourage “micro-infill” rather than large subdivisions on the outskirts of the urban area.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 00:55 – Introductory remarks, James River Green Building Council
• 02:25 – Panelists are introduced
• 05.35 -  Lyle Solla-Yates frames questions on site selection
• 09:20 – Richard Price on connecting the existing suburban landscape
• 15:45 – Elaine Nichols outlines Albemarle County’s Neighborhood Model
• 18:05 – Julia Monteith tells about University of Virginia planning initiatives
• 25:35 – Dan Rosensweig offers his vision for the City of Charlottesville
• 33:05 - Sean Dougherty explains the tool of Urban Growth Boundaries
• 38:05 – Karen Waters brings up the dilemma of gentrification
• 42:20 – Stratton Salidas combines ecological health and social justice
• 51:40 – Question and Answer: How does LEED-ND factor in site location?
• 53:00 – Is it easy for developers to redevelop on sustainable sites?
• 1:03:15 – What is more responsible, the demand or the supply?
• 1:11:55 - How much flexibility does planning commission have in allowing new development practices?
• 1:15:45 – How can a denser lifestyle be sold to the homeowners, neighbors, and developers?

Downtown Mall renovation will include new four by twelve inch bricks

At their August 19, 2008 meeting, the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review endorsed brick size recommendations for next year’s renovation of the Charlottesville Downtown Mall.  The mall surface will feature new four by twelve inch bricks set in sand in a herringbone pattern.  The brick size matches the existing 1974 design by Lawrence Halprin.  Smaller bricks will be used at the vehicular crossings.

Jim Tolbert, Charlottesville’s Director of Neighborhood Services, said that their recent research had determined that Halprin never intended for the bricks to be mortared in place.  UVA Architecture Professor Bill Moorish worked for Halprin in the 1970s on the Mall’s architectural drawings and shared with City staff the background on the decision to deviate from Halprin’s plan.

“That was a change order,” said Tolbert.  “Some folks in the City said if you don’t put mortar in, women will trip and fall because of high heels.”

Ironically, it is those failed mortar joints that are grabbing heels and tripping pedestrians today.  Tolbert said bricks on the vehicular crossings and side streets will be four inches by eight inches to withstand the weight of traffic.

According to Joe Schinstock of MMM Design, one of the brick specialists he has been talking with warned him strongly against using four by twelve inch bricks at the crossings. The specialist told MMM if they used large bricks on these roads, then they should expect to replace the bricks each year.

Schinstock also offered a couple of new options for where to purchase the four inch by twelve inch bricks. He said originally only one company in Nebraska would manufacture bricks that size, but when he asked companies if there was an order volume at which they would produce them, two other companies volunteered, one in North Carolina and the other in Pennsylvania.

While three companies have now been identified as sources for brick material, Schinstock said all new bricks will be manufactured in the same place with the same raw materials to keep the bricks consistent. They did not have any samples to show the board. ARB members raised concerns about color differences between new and old bricks but Schinstock reassured the council that the bricks should be extremely close to the color of the original bricks. He did mention that there is a slight difference in color between bricks sized four by eight inches and bricks sized four by twelve inches, because manufacturers have to fire the four by twelve inch bricks for a slightly longer period of time.

The board came to the consensus that they would continue to use and maintain the existing water drainage runnels. Schinstock suggested any loose runnels should be cleaned, tucked, pointed and set in mortar.

With the Board’s approval, Tolbert said he is ready to start buying materials almost immediately and wants to start repairing the runnels next month in order to meet the project’s deadline of May 2009.

Jessie Abrams & Brian Wheeler

City leaves land near Timberlake-Branham house unprotected; Councilors favor design review district for all of Woolen Mills

The Charlottesville City Council has endorsed a process which could place development in the Woolen Mills neighborhood under the design review of the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). If the neighborhood can successfully apply for the status, it would give the BAR the ability to scrutinize any future projects in the neighborhood.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080602-CC-Timberlake-Branham

At its meeting on June 2, 2008, Council considered a resolution to initiate a pre-emptive rezoning of  vacant land adjacent to the property known as the Timberlake-Branham house (built in 1886).  The property owner, Preston Coiner, is opposed to the rezoning. In placing the item on the agenda, Mayor Dave Norris was responding to concerns from Woolen Mills residents who felt the entire property should be subject to the “individually protected property” designation, which would require any structures built upon it to be subject to the design review of the Board of Architectural Review. Neighbors continue to dispute the ruling by Charlottesville’s Zoning Administrator that only the portion of the property with the historic home is protected. 

In introducing his staff report, Jim Tolbert, Director of the Department of Neighborhood Development Services, said it was difficult to give a full background on the property’s evolution. 

“What we do know is that at one point, all of this was one tax parcel… we do know that in 1989 it was subdivided by the property owner, and cut into two parcels. We know that in 1993, a portion of it was designated as an individually protected property by the City Council. And I say a portion of it because when it was subdivided in 1989, it in fact became two parcels. Some of the confusion arises because [the property] was under the ownership of one property owner, our assessor’s office never divided it on the tax maps as had been done with the recorded subdivision.”

The Timberlake-Branham house is protected as an "individually protected property" although land surrounding it is not (Source: Virginia Department of Historic Resources)

The confusion was compounded in 2003, when the City Council enacted a new zoning ordinance for the entire 10.4 square miles of the City. Tolbert said NDS staff tried to “clean up” all of the City’s individually designated properties to match them with the correct tax parcel number. In the case of the Branham-Timberlake property, NDS staff used the tax parcel number containing the house to identify the individually designated property, which meant the other vacant parcels lost that status.

Tolbert said he believed this reflected the original intent of the property owner, and he said the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld this view. The neighborhood sought to overturn this interpretation, but the suit was thrown out in Charlottesville Circuit Court.

Tolbert said Council could decide to initiate a process to grant individually protected status to all of Coiner’s parcels. That would involve first referring the matter to the Board of Architectural Review, and then scheduling a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. Tolbert recommended against this step because the property that currently lacks the status is vacant land.

“I’m not sure what we would hang our hat on as being significant about it to designate it as an individually protected property,” Tolbert said. He then offered the alternative of the architectural design control district, and said NDS staff is currently surveying the Woolen Mills neighborhood as part of the process to obtain state and federal historical protection.  Some of that work could go into the application process.  However,

Tolbert warned that protection would not necessarily stop development of the property if the current owner chooses.

“All it would do is provide for design review of any development that occurred, and the underlying zoning that’s on it would govern what’s built on it,” Tolbert said.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he had worked with Tolbert to try to identify the property, and also publicly acknowledged he was involved with the decisions made in 1989 and 1993.

“I signed the subdivision plat myself,” Huja said.

Councilor David Brown asked Huja if there was any way that both parcels could have been intended for designation in 1993. Huja said the property was divided in 1989 in order to clear the way for part of the property being designated. “That’s the only reason it was divided,” he said. Tolbert agreed and said that was his interpretation.

Councilor Brown said he had entered Council Chambers with the thought that a mistake had been made. “But after hearing Mr. Huja speak and Mr. Tolbert speak… it sounds like it was intentional, that the property was divided in order to avoid having to undergo BAR review.”

Brown asked how long it would take for the historic district survey to be completed. Tolbert said it would be completed within 60 days, possibly sooner.

Councilor Holly Edwards said she supported the architectural review district because it would give the Woolen Mills neighborhood a voice in whatever occurs in their neighborhood.

Earlier in the meeting Council received a history lesson of sorts from Jane Leitch whose relatives once owned the property. She currently lives in Greensboro, North Carolina, but traveled to Charlottesville in order to address Council.  Leitch said the property contains a lot of history, both personal and related to Woolen Mills.

“Someone had said that it is not a unique property,” Leitch said. “It is very unique… My aunts and my mother lived there and then they started the historical preservation thing and they were so excited when they got it because they thought that their property was going to be saved. And I think it’s a shame that what happened was that a mistake was made.  I know the back part has been developed, but I would like for you to not let it proceed any further.”

Kay Slaughter was a member of City Council from 1999-1998 and was heavily involved with historic preservation efforts in Woolen Mills.  Slaughter wrote the Board of Zoning Appeals in April 2007 and stated that:

"I was cognizant of the implications of the designation of the Timberlake Branham property, # 56-40.4, in Fall 1993.  When Council voted to designate this property as an individually protected property, the entire property was considered historic, not just the portion on which the house stood…. [T]he neighborhood and council understood that any new housing built on the property would need review by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR).  This was very important to the neighborhood and Council in 1993."

By not acting on the proposal to rezone Coiner’s parcels, the City has opted not to address what it has acknowledged in the past were “technical mistakes” related to the tracking of the land, but it has opened a new chapter for Woolen Mills by directing staff to explore the design control district.

Sean Tubbs and Brian Wheeler

The changing face of the UVA medical center

On March 4, 2008, the University of Virginia Medical Center hosted a community briefing to inform the public about the changing needs of medicine and the new hospital facilities being built at UVA.

Edward Howell, Vice President and CEO of the UVA Medical Center since 2002, described an existing hospital facility busting at the seams but eager to take on the challenges of 21st century medicine. 

“We need facilities for two reasons.  Facilities to deal with the increasing number of patients who come to us for care and facilities that recognize and have the capacity to adapt to this new 21st century molecular age of medicine,” said Howell.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080304-UVA-MedicalCenter.MP3

Howell described four major building projects intended to meet these challenges.  Three of the facilities will be completed during the next 3 ½ years (by 2010-11).  Several will transform the landscape in and around the “new hospital” which was opened for business in 1989 off Jefferson Park Avenue. 

The four major hospital building projects are:

• Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center at JPA and Lee Street (site of the hospital’s West parking garage)
• Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH) at Northridge on Route 250 W
• A new 72-bed six-story tower to be added to the face of the “new hospital”
• Barry & Bill Battle Children’s Hospital (near the intersection of JPA and West Main Street)

Ground breaking begins on the Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center on April 12, 2008.  Named in honor of former State Senator Emily Couric, this five story building across the street from the main hospital will replace the West parking garage which is closing on April 1st.  According to Howell, UVA has 41,000 cancer patient visits a year today, a number expected to double in the next few years.

“When Emily Couric was diagnosed with cancer [she] went from a transfusion and diagnostic room here…to San Antonio [for further treatment].  She was probably the most articulate spokesperson I can think of for having 21st century medicine in Charlottesville under one roof, and this facility will allow us to do that,” said Howell.  Couric died in 2001 of pancreatic cancer at the age of 54.

While the Couric facility begins the transformation of the main hospital grounds starting next month, UVA’s Northridge campus will see a ground breaking this summer for a new 50-bed Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH).  LTACH will serve patients with profound illnesses and often multiple organ failures who require hospitalizations of over 25 days.

“These patients are in our hospital today,” said Howell.  LTACH, he said, will free up beds in the main hospital and allow all patients to receive improved care.  The facility is expected to add 200 employees to the medical center workforce.

The most visually dramatic of the new buildings is the 72-bed six-story tower to be added to the face of the “new hospital.”  The addition will integrate with the three towers of the main hospital which opened in 1989. 

Howell guided the audience through a virtual “fly by” of the main hospital campus.  From some angles, it appeared as if the techies responsible for the proliferating “Hoo Vision” screens at the University’s athletic facilities had affixed a large flat screen on the front of the mammoth white hospital building.

Luis Carrazana, Senior Facility Planner in UVA Office of the Architect, said the design of the new buildings was about creating “a community for healing and a community for hope.”  Carrazana said lots of glass is being incorporated in the building designs.  “It’s not because of an architectural statement… it’s because of the nature of what is happening in the building and the people.”  Each patient room in the new main hospital tower will have floor to ceiling glass facing Lee Street.  The Clinical Cancer Center also includes a lot of glass, terrace courtyards, and landscaping.  “We are trying to make a connection to the outdoors.  We are trying to bring light into the building…to create a healing environment,” said Carrazana.

The fourth new facility is the Barry & Bill Battle Children’s Hospital (near the intersection of JPA and West Main Street)  Howell described this as largely an outpatient facility.  Its construction will not begin until 2011 after the other projects are complete.  Whether it will require the demolition of the Towers building is a decision that will not be made until later in 2008.

Taking it all in were about a dozen citizens from surrounding neighborhoods who raised concerns about issues such as traffic, parking, and the phasing of construction.

Fifeville resident and former Charlottesville Mayor Nancy O’Brien expressed concern about traffic to and from the hospital for patients, employees, and construction vehicles.  “While its very nice to have the [new West Main Street] parking garage with its 1,000 spaces, it’s getting the people to and from the parking garage that the neighborhood is concerned about.  From a [patient] care standpoint, this looks very nice.  From a neighborhood standpoint…it’s a sort of scary thing to envision because there is going to be more traffic,” said O’Brien. 

O’Brien encouraged UVA to increase its efforts to use satellite parking.  Thomas Harkins, the Medical Center’s Facilities Planning and Capital Development Administrator, said that over 2,000 employees already park remotely at Scott Stadium and University Hall and catch a bus to work.

Fry's Spring resident John Santoski asked if the Medical center was taking into account the fact that the JPA railroad bridge, near his City neighborhood, would be taken out of service for replacement during the construction of these buildings.  Santoski suggested traffic would be forced through other City neighborhoods and into the middle of the construction projects as vehicles navigate towards the University.  Harkins said he was unfamiliar with that project, but pledged to get information from City officials.

Highlights of Audio

• 1:20 - Introduction by Ida Lee Wooten, UVA's Director for Community Relations
• 9:00 - Presentation by Edward Howell, Vice President and CEO of the UVA Medical Center
• 15:25 - Howell describes Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center
• 18:38 - Howell describes Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTACH)
• 21:42 - Howell describes 72-bed six-story tower to be added to the face of the “new hospital”
• 25:43 - Howell describes Barry & Bill Battle Children’s Hospital
• 26:55 - Howell guides the audience through a virtual “fly by” of the main hospital campus.
• 35:22 - Presentation by Luis Carrazana, Senior Facility Planner in UVA Office of the Architect
• Podcast concludes with audiences questions answered by Howell, Carrazana, and Thomas Harkins, the Medical Center’s Facilities Planning and Capital Development Administrator

Brian Wheeler

Neighborhood stops sidewalks, warned of future road connections

A divided Planning Commission releases Beights from sidewalk project

Developer Gaylon Beights promised in his original sub-division plans for Mosby Mountain on Old Lynchburg Road to include asphalt paths along the neighborhood streets.  However, the paths were not built at the time the homes were constructed in 2005-06.  Residents bought their homes and moved in with accompanying mailboxes and landscaping projects along the streets.  When Beights came back in 2007 to install the paths, the neighbors asked why they were even needed.  County staff waived the requirement for sidewalks in part of the development, but insisted that plans move forward on two of Mosby Mountain’s cul-de-sacs.

Residents learned that a corner of the development was in the County’s designated growth area and came with expectations that residential streets there should have sidewalks.  The twenty homes in this part of Mosby Mountain are in what is known as Neighborhood 5 of the County’s southern urban growth area.  The rest of Mosby Mountain is in the rural area. [see map above]

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080115-CoPC-Mosby.MP3
 

The Mosby Mountain residents on Hatcher Court and Turnstone Drive strongly favor eliminating the proposed paths and asked Gaylon Beights to intervene with the County and get authorization to stop the project.  Attorney Valerie Long presented Beights’ case for a waiver request before the Albemarle County Planning Commission at their meeting on January 15, 2008.

Long said her client was trying to be responsive to the neighbors’ concerns and argued that because the streets were short, did not connect to anything else, and had a limited number of homes, the sidewalks were unnecessary.  Against the County staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission agreed to support the developer’s request and granted the waiver by a 4-3 vote (Edgerton, Joseph, and Morris against).

Mosby Mountain's Hatcher Court

One of the residents who signed the petition opposing the paths was Donald Mitchell.  Mitchell said that it was his understanding from the time he purchased his lot that there would not be sidewalks in the neighborhood.  When he saw them starting to be built last year, he was one of the residents that started asking questions.  According to Mitchell, neighbors were concerned about their mailboxes being moved and landscaping being disturbed.  He also wasn’t pleased with the choice of asphalt over concrete.  “They’re ugly.  They are completely ugly,” said Mitchell.  Mitchell said he has lived in Mosby Mountain for three years and has never had a safety concern for his family’s use of the street in the absence of sidewalks.

Tom Loach (White Hall) asked Mitchell if he would have objected to the sidewalks if they had been made of concrete and been a clear expectation or already in place at the time he purchased his lot.  Mitchell responded that it would have been different, “had they been concrete poured, aesthetically pleasing, as opposed to just paved asphalt that could be lumpy, bumpy, not completely straight…. Asphalt is not very appealing.”

Long said that the developer also wanted to support the neighbors’ request for a cohesive look to all of Mosby Mountain.  Loach is a Crozet resident and contributor to the committee that recommended to County the adoption of the Neighborhood Model.  The Neighborhood Model specifically calls for pedestrian oriented neighborhoods with sidewalks on both sides of streets.  Typically the sidewalks are separated from the roadway by a planting strip for trees and vegetation.  The Neighborhood Model also calls for neighborhood roads to be interconnected to each other.

There are two good examples of how the sidewalk requirement has been met in new developments in Crozet at both Wickham Pond and Waylands Grant.  The first photo show the construction of Wickham pond in mid-2007 with the sidewalks, planting strip and street trees already in place ahead of the homes.  The second photo shows a completed street in Waylands Grant.

Click images to enlarge Crozet's Wickham Pond in mid-2007 (left) and Laura Lane in Waylands Grant (right).

Long said the developer chose not to install the sidewalks in the beginning because he did not want them to be torn up by subsequent construction.  Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) said that he was concerned the developer was avoiding his obligation and not replacing it with an alternative amenity for the neighborhood. 

Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) also expressed sympathy for the neighbors, but he could not support making an exception, in part because of the history of neighborhoods changing their minds on sidewalks, particularly when faced with the prospect of a new neighborhood being connected to an existing development.  “The developer had an obligation to make sure that the people on Hatcher Court knew that the sidewalk was coming in,” said Edgerton.  “I can see at a later date Hatcher Court connecting with other properties to the north.  At that time, the sidewalk is going to become very critical.”

Several Commissioners expressed serious concerns about setting a precedent by relieving Beights of the obligation to build the paths.  However a motion to support the staff recommendation and deny the waivers failed by a vote of 3-4.  Then Eric Strucko said he would "very reluctantly" make a motion to approve the waivers.  That passed by a 4-3 vote.  After the vote that stopped the sidewalk project, Mitchell said he was very pleased.  “They listened to us as homeowners.  Mr. Beights has also been very supportive.”

Mr. Mitchell was, however, quite surprised to learn that, at least in the view of some of the Planning Commissioners and staff, his cul-de-sac was seen as accommodating a road interconnection to future development adjacent to his property.  “I am very surprised,” said Mitchell.  “My lot backs up to the land and there is probably not much development potential there.  That’s why I bought my lot.”  Mitchell said that if the County ever tried to connect Hatcher Court he would both be opposed to it and try to buy the land behind him.

Brian Wheeler

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2007

In my weekly appearance today on WINA AM 1070 on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy Barefoot and I counted down Charlottesville Tomorrow's top-10 growth and development stories of 2007.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20080103-RightNow.mp3

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2007

1. County Elections 2007—Ann Mallek elected Supervisor in White Hall District
2. 4,800 new homes approved at Biscuit Run, Hollymead Town Center, and Rivanna Village
3. Wendell Wood’s projects around National Ground Intelligence Center on Route 29N get new scrutiny by media, public, and local government
4. Albemarle Supervisors set new cash proffer expectations
5. Proposed rural area protection ordinances stalemate Board of Supervisors
6. Lack of rain leads to drought warnings
7. City Planning Commission debates ethics, communications with the public and developers, impartiality, and starts holding pre-meetings off camera
8. Water and sewer infrastructure needs get increased community attention
9. City approves another nine-story downtown building and receives recommendations to limit future building heights in some areas
10. Major capital projects continue facility improvements at the University of Virginia

Brian Wheeler

UVA asks City-County for $2 million in transportation funding

Supervisor Ken Boyd and UVA's Leonard Sandridge

As UVA Architect David Neuman walked into the August 16, 2007 Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) meeting, he grabbed Supervisor Dennis Rooker and jokingly asked, “How are you doing with my bridge?”  The railroad bridge near Ivy Nursery just off Route 250 West was recently damaged by a passing train and the County, VDOT and railroad officials are trying to determine how it can fund a long term repair.  For a couple days last week, Neuman and other Flordon residents faced a painful detour and learned that their bridge was not rated to support fire trucks.

However, Neuman and Leonard Sandridge, UVA’s Chief Operating Officer, had other transportation infrastructure matters to bring before the City and County officials in their quarterly PACC meeting.  Neuman asked the City and County each for $1 million for an Ivy Road Gateway Enhancement Project.  The University would match it with $1 million of their own if the City and County pursued matching funds from VDOT bringing the potential funding pool to $5 million.  UVA is not eligible for state matching funds.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070816-PACC.MP3

UVA officials want to dust off some of the recommendations from a 1994 joint study of the Ivy Road area because this entrance corridor is being used for an increasing number of visitors to the new John Paul Jones Arena and UVA’s future arts district being built at the Emmet Street intersection.

Neuman outlined the following project objectives:

• Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access and safety
• Calm traffic speeds in certain areas
• Create a more aesthetically attractive entrance corridor for thousands of visitors

Albemarle County has a lengthy list of primary and secondary road priorities.  For the past couple of years there has been an intense effort by Albemarle officials to redirect all available local funding towards just three roads: the Meadowcreek Parkway; Georgetown Road; and Jarman’s Gap Road.  There is not a lot of money to go around.  Albemarle is expecting to receive only $3.7 million from the state this year for all secondary road projects. 

Both of Neuman’s presentations to PACC this year have outlined a vision for the community’s future, and assessments of the significant dollars required to make those dreams a reality.  In February, Neuman gave a presentation of active UVA construction projects costing over $385 million and intended to address, he emphasized, “space deficiency” issues, not to accommodate growth in needed employees or additional students. 

Often when City and County officials see those presentations by developers, they are trying to angle for cash proffer contributions as part of a rezoning request.  Despite the scale of these projects at UVA, proffers are not part of the equation for land being redeveloped by the University.  On land owned by the UVA Foundation, however, the City and County are hoping for a proffered contribution for a piece of the Fontaine Avenue-Sunset Connector.  That road will be used largely by UVA employees and other local commuters, not visitors to Charlottesville.  At this meeting, UVA made their case that enhancing Ivy Road should find a place on the community priority list.

Mayor David Brown and Supervisors Ken Boyd and Dennis Rooker all voiced support for efforts that would include improvements for bicycles and pedestrians in the corridor.  However, as the local leaders dealing with annual transportation funding challenges, and pressure from new development in the County on City roads, they were clearly in no position to promise any funding. 

Supervisor Boyd said, “I certainly agree this is a worthwhile project to move forward with.  Unfortunately all of these when taken by themselves look like great projects for us to do and collectively it creates a real financial burden for us….We have to consider, how this [compares] in priority to all the other things we have going on.  It should be explored…”

Rooker also reflected on the funding challenges and suggested the community and UVA consider an “events tax.”

“There is obviously a funding tension between the various demands in the community.  On the one hand, we have projects that the City and County have a joint interest in, the Eastern Connector, the Southern Parkway, and roads like that that we are trying to get to a point where we can [fully] fund.  Our growth areas, which themselves have high demands for infrastructure….Then we have what I would call the normal road projects that are either putting down or creating new connections, new roads, widening, or repairing older roads.  All those are competing for money.  One thought might be, I’ll just put this on the table…kind of thinking out loud let’s say, would be the possibility of an events tax.  With the money from an events tax earmarked for transportation projects of mutual interest to the City, County and University.”

While they did not agree on a source of revenue, the PACC members did vote unanimously to send the Ivy Road project to their technical review committee for further study.  Rooker suggested an events or admissions tax should be a topic at a future PACC meeting.

Brian Wheeler