Mixed use development at Ridge-Cherry intersection recommended for approval

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, September 11, 2009

Charlottesville currently has three historical markers recognizing William Taylor as one of the area’s first colonial settlers dating back to 1737.  If the Charlottesville Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a rezoning at Ridge Street and Cherry Avenue holds, Taylor will be honored at a fourth location by construction of Southern Development’s proposed “William Taylor Plaza.”

On Wednesday, the Commission held another public hearing on the project which would create up to fifty apartments or condominiums along Ridge Street and 100,000 square feet of commercial space along Cherry Avenue.  While final approval will be up to City Council, the forested corner across from Tonsler Park has been on their agenda previously.  In October 2008, City Council approved the sale of two parcels of city-owned land that are now incorporated into the development proposal.

Eight residents spoke at Wednesday’s  public hearing and seven of them voiced concerns about matters that included increased traffic, building heights, the protection of trees, and the potential to disturb a family graveyard.  Charlottesville resident Antoinette Roades was among those telling the Commission she opposed the development. 

Rendering of proposed William Taylor Plaza as viewed from Cherry Avenue

“I oppose this massive project. It will literally crush my very old, very fragile neighborhood,” said Roades.  “But even if I thought this project was great, I would oppose your advancing it because of the overriding concern of Allen Woodson Hawkins’ family graveyard.”

Roades has collected evidence which she says proves the family graveyard will be impacted by the project.  Charlie Armstrong, a Vice President of Southern Development, told the Commission that his company has had archeological experts look at the site, but so far no graveyard has been found.  He pledged to excavate the site carefully and respect any evidence of human remains.  The Planning Commission was told by Deputy City Attorney, Richard Harris, that even if the graveyard does exist, the matter was outside their purview with respect to the act of just rezoning the property. 

“These lots can be built on right now by right,” said Harris.  “A rezoning will simply allow a different type of development on that property.”

If approved by City Council, William Taylor Plaza would be a Planned Unit Development on 2.9 acres.  The conceptual plan by local architect Kirk Train shows two-story residential buildings along Ridge Street and commercial buildings up to five stories in height along Cherry Avenue.  At least twenty percent of the land will be undisturbed and include a public arboretum.

Since the Commission’s review of the rezoning last month, Armstrong said he had responded to concerns about traffic, bicycle storage, and pedestrian safety.  City staff said they were supportive of the rezoning.  While Commissioners continued to express concerns about additional traffic in the neighborhood and pedestrian safety, City staff concluded that Armstrong had appropriately mitigated the impacts of his development.

Commissioner Jason Pearson said that traffic was an issue that the City already needed to address throughout the Cherry Avenue corridor as it seeks to promote mixed-use development. 

 “It is currently zoned to be much more intense in density than current construction would suggest.  There will be a lot more cars on Cherry Avenue if that zoning envelope is truly built out,” said Pearson.  “We would do well as a Commission to think more comprehensively than this single project.”

“We think it is a great project for the city,” said Charlie Armstrong after the commission’s 5-2 vote to recommend the rezoning.  Commissioners Bill Emory and Genevieve Keller voted against the project.  “We hope to start engineering as soon as rezoning is complete.  It will be a year or two before any construction activity begins.”

City Planner Ebony Walden said she expects Charlottesville City Council to review the rezoning in October.

Charlie Armstrong (left), VP Southern Development, addressing the Charlottesville Planning Commission

Army Corps of Engineers wants new map for City’s portion of Meadowcreek Parkway; Say their letter to VDOT is routine request for information

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, July 20, 2009

A federal environmental review of the City’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway is on hold until the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) can submit additional material. An official with the Army Corps of Engineers has sent a letter to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requesting a new map for McIntire Road Extended. 

“We have concluded that the project plans we are currently reviewing do not show a terminus at the southern end of McIntire Road [Extended],” reads a July 16, 2009 letter from J. Robert Hume III, the Chief of the Regulatory Branch for the Corps’ Norfolk District. “In order for us to continue our evaluation of the proposed McIntire Road Extension, the work must be a single and complete project with logical termini.”

The Corps has jurisdiction over construction projects that affect the nation’s watershed. VDOT had asked the Army Corps of Engineers for permission for an unnamed tributary of Schenk’s Branch to be re-routed through a box culvert. The letter states that the Corps’ review cannot proceed unless engineers can see the full scope of the work.

“Please submit additional plans, including quantifications of any additional impacts to waters of the United States, necessary to complete the project to a logical ending point,” the letter reads.

The drawings submitted to the Corps assume that the McIntire Road Extended ends at the northern end of the Parkway’s grade-separated interchange with the 250 Bypass. Both the road and the interchange are considered by VDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be two separate projects. The County’s portion, which is well under construction, is considered to be a third.  Each has a separate funding source. The County’s portion has been funded through Albemarle’s share of state secondary road funds and the City’s portion has been paid for through urban funds from the state. The proposed interchange is funded by a federal earmark from former Senator John Warner.

Parkway opponents have long alleged that the parkway was segmented into three portions in order to avoid a full environmental review from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In February, an attorney for the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park sent a letter to the FHWA that argued this case.

“In my opinion, the FHWA has unlawfully constrained the scope of the [Environmental Assessment] and Section 4(f) evaluation by failing to evaluate McIntire Road Extended and the Interchange as part of a single, federalized project,” wrote attorney Andrea Ferster.  Section 4(f) refers to a portion of the Department of Transportation Act that requires environmental assessments for road constructions projects that use public parkland.

Download Ferster's letter to the Federal Highway Administration

Former City Council Candidate Peter Kleeman has consistently appeared before Council to point out the project’s drawings are clear evidence that none of the projects can exist independently.  He said the letter from the Corps could issue in a new era of federal scrutiny.

“This position will change the way the parkway/interchange projects move forward and may in fact re-federalize the entire project,” wrote Kleeman in an e-mail to Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Mark Haviland, Chief of Public Affairs for the Corps’ Norfolk District, said the letter has been taken out of context by opponents. He said the Corps’ routinely asks for more information from applicants. 

“Sometimes when applications are sent, we require additional information so we can do an accurate evaluation,” Haviland said in an interview. He said opponents of the parkway should not read too much into the Corps’ letter. “Nowhere in [the letter] do we talk about where the terminus needs to terminate. All along VDOT has said there are one or two possibilities. It either ends at a proposed interchange being handled by FHWA, or it would end at Route 250. From the Corp’s perspective, what we have to do is find out where the road is going to end.”

The Army Corps of Engineers is also involved with a review of what steps will be required to mitigate the effects the parkway will have on McIntire Park, which has been determined as a historic resource. This process is required in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Corps will issue a memorandum of understanding as soon as one is ready.  The FHWA is the lead federal agency for the Section 106 process required for the interchange project.

Lou Hatter, a spokesman for VDOT’s Culpeper District, said the agency is still formulating a response to the letter. He said while the Corps has raised a valid question, he is confident the project will not be halted as a result.

“We don’t see this as a significant obstacle,” Hatter told Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Charlottesville Planning Commission wrestles with industrial zoning in Woolen Mills

At their March 10, 2009 joint public hearing, the Charlottesville Planning Commission discussed the tension Woolen Mills residents feel between the low-density residential nature of the neighborhood today and the current industrial zoning. Although the only action made was a small text edit in the comprehensive plan, it’s a change the speaks volumes to the community and the Commission will bring this topic up for further discussion in their March 24 work session.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090310-CPC-Woolen-Mills

Charlottesville’s Comprehensive Plan is the key document to guide growth and development in the 10.3 square miles that make up the City. Victoria Dunham, President of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association, was not happy with the following passage in the section of the plan that deals with her neighborhood:

“The challenge with Industrial land is finding somewhere to place it; no one wants to have it in their backyard.”

According to Dunham, “I’m here at the end of a 21 year stretch … we have been repeatedly categorized as an industrial neighborhood.”  Whatever the historical characterization of the neighborhood, she feels it is time to change the zoning to fit the current character of the neighborhood.

Dunham objected to the first sentence that begins the narrative for the Land Use Map for Woolen Mills. Click to read the first page (Source: City of Charlottesville, Comprehensive Plan , Chapter 5, Land Use Map, Page 85)

Many Planning Commissioners agreed that this sentence is unnecessarily editorial. Along with requesting the deletion, Dunham asked Neighborhood Development Services staff to consider altering the Land Use Map to preemptively rezone industrial sections of Woolen Mills. However, the Land Use Map request met a procedural barrier. Any updates to the 2007 map need to take all issues considered during the last update into account before being made. It cannot be amended in a piecemeal fashion.

City Planner Brian Haluska and the Planning Commission discussed the challenge of finding adequate industrial land for economic development and ensuring the quality of life for low-density neighborhoods such as Woolen Mills. The traditional “Euclidian” zoning model sought strict separation of uses, but Haluska also referenced newer models of zoning that seek some compatibility between light industrial use and residential. Haluska acknowledged that, “When we think of industrial we think of smoke, we think of noise.” He said there are many light industrial uses that are closer in character to office and technology parks.

While the topic of the hearing specifically dealt with a particular sentence in the Woolen Mills neighborhood plan, Commissioners probed the definition of industrial use for the City of Charlottesville.

Finding adequate and acceptable land for industry is a regional issue. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors have also been seeking land within their own borders to allocate for light industry. Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) expressed her concern last month when she heard that the City Planning Commission was considering scaling back the amount of land available for industrial use in the city.

 “I would encourage our staff to work with City staff particularly if they’re considering changing things that would put more pressure on our industrial land,” Thomas said.

Most of the City Planning Commissioner spoke in favor of seeing Woolen Mills become less industrial, but, as Commissioner Mike Farruggio put it, “there is no easy fix.”

Any changes need to be done as part of a comprehensive review, but there seems to be sufficient interest to continue the conversation in the near future. The next installment will take place during the Planning Commissions March 24 work session.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

•    00:55 – Staff report from Brian Haluska
•    10:55 – Keller asks whether there is adequate industrial land zoned
•    14:20 – The procedure for updating comprehensive plan
•    17:59 – Emory asks about previous requests from Woolen Mills
•    21:20 – Emory asks if industrial use compromises neighborhood quality of life
•    24:50 – Limited ability to regulate existing industrial use
•    27:30 – Lewis brings up 2006 discussion on this topic
•    30:40 – Presentation from Victoria Dunham
•    38:00 - Emory moves to defer to March 24 work session
•    43:30 - Commission discusses deleting sentence in comprehensive plan
•    49:50 – Emory is concerned by lack of public interest
•    53:40 – Rosensweig sees connection with residential density discussion
•    56:45 – Commission votes on motion

City Planning Commission recommends new historic preservation tool

Fifeville is listed as a potential candidate for a conservation district

A new historical preservation tool could potentially be given to Charlottesville residents that wish to preserve the character and scale of their neighborhoods. In their January 13, 2009 meeting, the Charlottesville Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for the creation of a conservation district ordinance (abbreviated ‘CV’ by City staff).

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090113-CVdistrict

According to Preservation and Design Planner, Mary Joy Scala, the conservation district would function as an “architectural design control district lite.” Unlike the more robust ADC overlay district, the new CV district would only affect new construction and demolition, not renovations. It is intended for use in more “modest neighborhoods,” although this ordinance itself does not apply to any specific neighborhoods. An interested neighborhood would have to propose a rezoning and get it approved through the public process to be adopted.

The Planning Commission previously discussed creating the category of CV districts during their November 11, 2008 meeting. They deferred the item on account of a letter from Mark Watson of Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA), which implied that CV districts could limit the supply of affordable housing in the city. The letter stated: “If the proposed ordinance had been in-place during the past decade, PHA’s revitalization initiatives in Starr Hill, Hinton Avenue, and 10th & Page would probably have been impossible to accomplish.”

The Commissioners took this criticism seriously. They said they needed time to read the letter in its entirety and hear more from PHA. Since then, the PHA board reconsidered their stance and sent a more supportive letter to City staff, although they still acknowledged that such a tool could be used to limit development and promote segregation. Their primary concerns were that the interests of the entire city be taken into account when deciding on implementing CV districts, and that a fair public process take place.

During last week’s meeting, the Commissioners focused on the nature of this public process. How would the necessary consensus be achieved among neighbors to request this designation? Some neighborhoods have strong neighborhood associations that can offer a clear voice, but many of the neighborhoods that might be candidates for CV districts do not have these structures in place. Commissioner Dan Rosensweig mentioned that sometimes even he, an active citizen of Charlottesville, is not always privy to the actions of his neighborhood association, and he worried about whether others may also be left out the decision.

Mayor Dave Norris asked whether a formal process could be devised similar to a federal National Registry designation. In this case, all residents of a neighborhood are given notice, and if more than 50% of the owners object the process can be blocked. Ms. Scala responded that a system is already in place to ensure public participation. If neighborhood associations themselves are not effective in generating consensus, than the objections would likely come out in the public hearing for the rezoning. She clarified that each resident for whom a CV district would affect would be sent written notice prior to the public hearing.

Commissioner Jason Pearson brought up the recent unsuccessful attempt to historically preserve his neighborhood of Fifeville as evidence of a successful public process. Other Fifeville and Ridge Street residents have recently expressed their frustrations with the development review process when they were disappointed by City Council’s action to sell two parcels of City-owned land on the corner of Ridge Street and Cherry Avenue to Southern Development. Opponents of that project have cited years of feedback in opposition to the development which they believe fell on deaf ears and led to citizen apathy at later public hearings.

Having passed through the Board of Architectural review in July 2008 and the Planning Commission in January 2009, the CV district ordinance will next be heard by City Council at an upcoming meeting.

Daniel Nairn & Brian Wheeler

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

1:35 - Preservation planning Mary Joy Scala presents ordinance
7:20 – Commissioner Emory asks about the role of planning staff
8:40 – Commissioner Farruggio raises concerns about additions to existing houses
11:50 – Commissioner Rosensweig opens discussion about public process of designation
16:40 – Mayor Norris points to a codified federal process for historic designation
19:05 – Sub-neighborhoods can still apply
22:30 - Public comments from neighborhood association representatives
29:10 – Comment from architectural historian
32:55 - More discussion on public process of designation
34:45 – Commissioner Farruggio concerned about cost burden for homeowners
 43:20 – Commissioner Lewis supportive but wants to be sure property can be adapted
53:10 - Commissioner Emory offers philosophical reason for preservation
57:50 – Motion made and passed

Albemarle County Supervisors hear recommendations for Historic Overlay Ordinance

The Albemarle County Historic Preservation Committee presented to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, November 5, 2008. Committee member Benjamin Ford summarized their review of the County’s current preservation measures, and recommended that the County create a Historic Overlay District. Most of the Supervisors offered broad support to the recommendation, but all questioned whether funding would be available for implementation.

Ben Ford of Historic Preservation Committee

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081105-BOS-Historic-Preservation

The Committee reported that increased population and development trends have put pressure on local historic properties. They praised programs, such as Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE), that are targeted at preserving the rural landscape, but noted that other preservation efforts are strictly voluntary. They identified four properties they deemed significant in the county that were not saved under current regulations: Wilton farm, Oakleigh farm, Advanced Mills general store, and Sutherland barn.

The Board of Supervisors discussed to what degree an Historic Overlay Ordinance is necessary to preserve the character of the county and to what degree it could become a burden on property owners. Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said he was bothered by an ordinance that would lead to unnecessary government intrusion. Other Supervisors were also concerned about the subjective nature of designating historic resources. For example, an airport motel on the list may be old, but does the community really want to preserve it? Ford responded that an ordinance could be flexible, stating, “protect and preserve does not mean that the property owner cannot touch the property.” Adaptive reuse would be encouraged. Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) added that, at a minimum, an ordinance could simply require historic documentation before a demolition permit is issued.

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

Secondly, the Board discussed whether historic preservation is a high enough priority to warrant County funding during a time of budgetary restrictions throughout County offices. Currently, a part-time intern staffs the historic preservation office, but this position will not be funded beyond December of this year. The Supervisors agreed to pursue unpaid interns from the University, but David Slutzky (Rio) added, “I don’t want it to be left with the public that we are satisfied that we have addressed our intent with those meager volunteer efforts.” Supervisors also asked volunteers from the Historic Preservation Committee to conduct background research of ordinances enacted in other communities.

The Board of Supervisors will next revisit the issue in February 2009 as part of the review of the Community Development work program.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 0:53 - Ben Ford presents commitee report
• 4:03 - Commitee's report on growth trends
• 5:23 - Outline of successful county policies
• 6:28 - Current challenges faced by county
• 7:18 - Recommendation of an historic overlay district
• 8:03 - Sally Thomas praises the commitee's work
• 10:58 - Ford addresses fiscal situation, lack of staff.
• 15:08 - Boyd expresses concern about limiting property rights
• 17:48 - Definition of documenting a property
• 20:03 - Concern about demolition of farm property
• 20:38 - Difference between "historic" and "just old"
• 22:08 - Dennis Rooker calls for objective and clear standards
• 24:43 - Properties of local significance, not on state or federal lists
• 28:43 - Supervisors discuss what a moderate ordinance would be
• 31:58 - Supervisors discuss lack of resources and staff time
• 34:18 - Thomas expresses "conceptual" support for preservation
• 36:23 - Board talks about where to go from here
• 37:28 - Looking for volunteers or unpaid interns
• 38:33 - Board calls for research of other counties' ordinances
• 39:43 - Thomas clarifies that an ordinance would not effect historic districts
• 41:08 - Board instructs the committee of next step

Council denies demolition permit for property off West Main

The Moon-Henderson House on 10 1/2th Street (Source: City of Charlottesville)

The Charlottesville City Council has denied an appeal by the owner of the Moon-Henderson House on 10 1/2th Street to demolish the structure. Owner Bill Chapman had claimed that he could not afford to renovate the house, but the Board of Architectural Review voted 6-0 in September 2008 against the request. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081103-CC-Demolition

Tenth and a ½th street is a short spur off of West Main Street. Developer Bill Atwood is planning to build a 6 story building nearby at the location of the Under the Roof furniture store. The house was built in the late 19th Century and is located in the West Main Architectural Design Control District. Mary Joy Scala, the City’s Preservation and Design Planner, told Council that the structure met none of the City’s criteria for demolition. She said the house is structurally sound, and is one of the few remaining historic structures left on West Main Street.

“That district has had a lot of demolitions over the years,” Scala said. “It’s one of the few remaining structures in that area.” Another demolition request made by a previous owner were denied in 1997. 

Bill Chapman makes his case to City Council

Chapman told Council he could not find a lot to disagree with in staff’s assessment of the demolition criteria. He said he has been waiting since 2003 for the market conditions in the area to mature before he can afford the $320,000 he said he needs to renovate the space for either residential or office use. Chapman said the house, which has been vacant since Chapman took ownership, is constantly being broken in to by vagrants.

“Even though it is structurally sound, it is financially unsound, and it’s an unsafe situation I want to fix,” Chapman told Council.

Councilor David Brown said he was bothered that the building was allowed to decline into neglect, and that he would uphold the BAR’s decision. Councilor Holly Edwards called the building a historic treasure, and said it was an important element of Charlottesville African-American past. Councilor Satyendra Huja said he understood Chapman’s argument, but that the space could be purchased by someone for use as an affordable rental unit.

Council voted 5-0 to uphold the BAR’s decision. Chapman has the right to make an appeal in Charlottesville Circuit Court. Scala said he can also put the house up for sale to a buyer who commits to preserving the house. Scala said if no bona fide offers are made within a year, Chapman has the right to proceed with demolition under state law. 

Sean Tubbs

Landmark Hotel developer given permission to take down black granite facade

The developer of the new Landmark Hotel on the Downtown Mall has been granted conditional permission to tear down the black granite façade that is the last standing remnant of the former Boxer Learning Building. The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the permit at their meeting on October 21, 2008. However, if Minor Family Hotels does decide to take down the façade, they may be required to build an exact replica. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeoz

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081021-BAR-Landmark

Mary Jo Scala, the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, said the original permit to demolish the building was granted in January 2004, except for the façade. When the demolition was reapproved in February 2007, Minor was required to keep the first 12’ of the building, which was built in 1966. Currently, the Landmark is under construction and the removal of the building behind the façade has exposed structural problems.

“Apparently, they’re nervous about when they get to the point of removing the existing floor that firms the first floor because that’s kind of holding it all together,” Scala said. She said that the project's construction manager, Cliff Harrison, said to her that Minor wants to try to preserve the façade if at all possible.

In his testimony to the BAR, Harrison said the applicant had believed the floor could be used for the restaurant space that be located at the front of the building. However, the floor may not be able to support the required weight load. Harrison said the hotels’ construction is ahead of schedule, and that the applicant wants the option to demolish the façade if it were deemed necessary by the engineers overseeing the work.

“We don’t want to get to a point and have something bite us in the back end, and we saw this as being as one of those variables out there,” Harrison said. If it is necessary to take the façade down, Harrison said it would be “resurrected” according to the designs approved by the BAR.  

BAR Member Brian Hogg asked if the applicant would later come back with a proposal to change the façade, given that the original designs depicted using the original structure and façade.  Harrison said that was out of his control, but that the intent of the design would remain intact.

“Granite is granite, and I think it’s a matter of what the degree of polish you have on it and what the color tone is,” Harrison said.  “I’m coming here in all honest saying that this is just an issue that we have concern [about] on a construction site that does have some relevance to safety.”

BAR Member Syd Knight said he was the only member of the BAR who was there in January 2004 when the demolition permit for the back of the building was granted.

“There was some discussion at the time of taking of that façade down and whether it was worth saving, and there was fairly strong feeling in both camps,” Knight said. “Some said it was out of character with the rest of the mall and not exactly the most attractive or architecturally worthy….Others felt that whether or not it was considered compatible with the rest of the Mall, it was certainly an example of its time and place.”

Knight then said the owner of the property at the time “short-circuited” the discussion by offering to keep the façade. He said he leaned in favor of granting the applicants the “flexibility they’re looking for” but hoped that they could keep it.  He said the building currently under construction is one of quality.

BAR Member Eryn Brennan, a historic preservationist, said she was not in favor of granting the request because the façade is unique. She said construction was always going to be an issue, and said that a replica would not be as desirable as the original.  

“Although my own personal aesthetic preferences don’t tell me that’s the best façade, nonetheless I think it has a great historical value on the mall and in Charlottesville,” Brennan said. “It gives the new building a very grounded sense of place here on the Mall.”

Hogg said he did not share Knight’s confidence that the developer would be able to come up with a suitable replica. Although he said that a good engineer could find a way to save the façade, he said the BAR should consider letting  the façade go, because it’s only a shred of the original structure.

“I think we’re deluding ourselves when we’re talking about demolition here,” Knight said. “I mean, that building is gone… I think this one has already been killed and maybe we should just put it out of its misery.”

Brennan said she thought the scraps are worth saving, and that the Mall will face this issue again and again and she did not want to set a precedent that would make it easier to take down other facades in the future.

BAR Chair Fred Wolf suggested requiring the applicant to replace the façade as-is in order to create an incentive for them to keep it.  However, Wolf said the compromise would not prevent the applicant from coming back before the BAR in the future with a new façade design. Wolf’s motion passed 5-1 with Brennan voting against.

Sean Tubbs

Over objections of some property owners, Council takes first step to identify historic buildings

A portion of the Wachovia bank in the Barracks Road Shopping Center is being considered for designation as an Individually Protected Property

City Council has indicated it supports the designation of four separate buildings in the City of Charlottesville as Individually Protected Historic Properties.  After passing through both the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) and the Planning Commission, Council held a first reading of the historic designation measures at its meeting on September, 15 2008. If Council passes the ordinance change at its meeting on October 6, 2008, it will be the first time since 1993, and only the second time ever, that the city has focused protection on individual buildings.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080915-CC-IPP

The first building is former Coca-Cola plant, now converted into apartment buildings, on 10th Street. City Councilor Satyendra Huja expressed agreement with the BAR that examples of this era of industrial architecture are fairly unique and deserve protection. The second building still functions as a Coca-Cola bottling plant on Preston Street. Built in 1937, it is the largest remaining example in Charlottesville of the art deco style, a mixture of both classical and modern design elements popular around the world between the 1920’s and the 30’s. Since there have been newer or less significant additions to the building, Council decided to designate only the front portion of the property as historic.

The old Monticello Dairy building is another being considered for protection

The third building is a bank that sits on a 22 acre property in Barracks Road shopping center. The original building dates back to around 1965. Although modern in design, it was intended as a reference to the Rotunda. Councilor Holly Edwards felt it contributes to the “Jeffersonian feel that makes Charlottesville Charlottesville.” Finally, the fourth building is the former Monticello Dairyon Grady Avenue. Another industrial building in the Preston corridor, the Monticello Dairy is noted for its neo-classical façade.

Several of the property owners objected, whether in part or in full, to the designations, claiming they would lose the flexibility to engage in future redevelopments of their property. To do so they would have to seek approval from the BAR. Councilors wrestled with the idea of moving forward without the owners full consent. Mayor Dave Norris asked staff to consider the possibility of providing incentives to help “soften the blow” of the approved restrictions. This could be achieved, in the form of tax breaks, or through recommendation to the National Historic Register.

Council also spent time deliberating between protecting the whole parcel and selecting important the parts of the building for protection. The dilemma arose because many of these buildings have been added to several times, and some of the owners were willing to grant protection of the old portion while seeking to retain the right to alter the less significant additions. In August, the City Planning Commission had struck a compromise by selecting individual buildings in larger parcels but not breaking down the buildings into parts. Council’s action followed this reasoning, except in the case of the Coca-Cola plant on Preston, which was approved only for front portion of the building facing the street.

Other properties are also working their way through the approval process to become individually protected. On October 6, Council will hear the first reading of an ordinance to protect Holy Temple Church of God on Rosser Avenue. Two other public hearings for Fry’s Spring Beach Club and 603 Dale Avenue have not yet been scheduled according to Mary Joy Scala, the City’s Preservation and Design Planner.

Daniel Nairn

City Planning Commission initiates review of three zoning changes

Reviews of three potential zoning changes were initiated during the September 9, 2008 Charlottesville Planning Commission meeting: whether theaters ought to be included in mixed-use zones; how exactly the term Bed and Breakfast should be legally defined; and whether the category of conservation district should be adopted. These decisions will launch investigations over the next few months for each of the three issues, in order to determine whether the Commission will take further action.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080909-CPC-initiations

The proposal concerning theater allowances was made by the city staff, who were concerned that current zoning would not allow a future use similar to the Paramount theater in the downtown area. While the initial staff proposal focused on the downtown corridor, Commissioner Dan Rosensweig suggested that the staff apply the investigation to all mixed-use zones in the city. Several of the commissioners speculated as to why theaters had been excluded from the zoning in the first place, and the staff was asked to clear up some apparent discrepancies in the definition of theater.

The Dinsmore Bed and Breakfast on West Main Street qualifies as a B&B. But can a B&B have dozens of rooms?

All of the commissioners agreed that the city’s current definition of Bed and Breakfast is not sufficiently clear, particularly a clause stating that it must be “in the nature of an inn.” Since Bed and Breakfasts are currently allowed in R3 residential zones, the Planning Commission wanted to ensure that neighborhoods would be protected from lodging out of character with their surroundings. The city staff made the preliminary suggestion of limiting the number of allowable rooms to eight. Commissioner Michael Osteen also floated the idea that Bed and Breakfasts could be allowed to open up their breakfast meal to non-guests as another place for neighbors to “share a cup of tea together.” The city staff was asked gather information on current Bed and Breakfasts in Charlottesville and also to investigate ways other areas have attempted to capture nuances in lodging definitions.

Finally, the planning commission discussed the initiative on establishing conservation districts, which had already passed through the Board of Architectural Review (BAR). The proposed districts will provide an alternative to the existing historic districts, although the intent is less to regulate usage than it is to mitigate uses deemed to be out of context. Several on the commission expressed reservations. Commissioner Rosensweig requested to know why two members of the BAR objected to the conservation districts. He questioned whether conservation districts would have an adverse effect on affordable housing, asking the staff to consult with local housing organizations before moving forward. Commissioner Osteen expressed a worry that the existence of charming, smaller houses may be precluded by these districts. Commissioner Genevieve Keller concurred and added that the creation of yet another historical preservation zone could be confusing to the public. As a possible alternative, Commissioner Cheri Lewis recalled a program used in Chicago to reward good design with a medallion rather than prohibit unfit design. The staff agreed to research these different possibilities and bring the findings to the table for the final discussion.

Daniel Nairn

Albemarle takes steps to preserve and support country stores

The Batesville Store, Batesville, VA - Photo: Natalie Krovetz

At their July 22, 2008 meeting the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a zoning text amendment that the County expects will help preserve rural country stores as economic, historic, and cultural resources. The changes are intended to provide owners of both new and historic country stores with added flexibility for their operations.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:

Download 20080722-Country Stores

When  Albemarle amended its comprehensive plan in 2005, it identified country stores as an important community resource, and the Albemarle Historic Preservation Plan adopted in 2000 also called for the reuse of historic country store buildings in order to ensure their preservation. County staff surveyed eighty-three country stores in Albemarle to determine what changes could be made to support their continued viability.

While the country store owners were encouraged by the support from local government, they had concerns about a number of issues, including:

• A continuation of the policy limiting country stores to 4,000 sq. feet.
• A rule allowing only 20% of the floor space of a country store to be used for dining seating.
• A passage referring to non-conventional sewage disposal systems, sometimes required due to limitations of traditional country store design.
• A restriction on the number of gasoline pumps and nozzles allowed.
• A requirement for the Architectural Review Board to take into account guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as established by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The existing ordinance has a maximum size of 4,000 sq. feet included in its definition of a country store, which did not allow for exceptions to be made by the Planning Commission.  As amended, this restriction could be waived at the Commission’s discretion.  Further, the revised ordinance would allow secondary uses in country store buildings so long as a majority (51%) of the building remains in use as a country store.

Historic country stores, those more than 50 years old, will be exempt from a number of regulations affecting setbacks from the road, entrance corridor design reviews, and sewage disposal. Non-conventional septic systems may be used as long as it can be demonstrated to the zoning administrator that a conventional system would not work. Alternative septic systems would also have to receive approval from the Virginia Department of Health before being implemented.

Several country store owners were on hand to share their views on the ordinance. “I think you’ve done a great job on this,” said Dave Wyant, a former County Supervisor and owner of Wyant’s Store in White Hall. However, Wyant was concerned about the regulation requiring that a country store not use more than 20% of its space for food seating, explaining that in the rural area, the country store table is the real gathering place for the community. Joe Jones, owner of another country store in White Hall, echoed Wyant’s concern about the 20% number, citing stores in neighboring counties with 33-50% of the floor space dedicated to seating.

Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) said that flexibility in the seating requirements was important and suggested a 33% maximum for that purpose.  The Commission discussed that matter and decided to leave the 20% limit it in place since any store wanting a larger seating area could simply ask for a waiver from the Commission.

Chip Royer, Boyd Tavern Market

Chip Royer, part owner of Boyd Tavern Market in Keswick, voiced  concerns about the sale of gasoline.  “We can’t take advantage of the economies of scale that someone like a BP or a Sheetz can do….If you knew what we had to pay for gas compared to some of the larger stations, you’d be shocked,” said Royer. The ordinance requires country stores wishing to sell gasoline to receive a special use permit to do so, and allows a maximum of one pump and six nozzles dispensing gasoline. The Commissioners clarified that the regulations apply only to gasoline, and stores have no restrictions on diesel or kerosene pumps, often used for farm vehicles.

Another area of concern were changes that called for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to use the guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings, as established by the U.S. Department of the Interior, when determining the  appropriateness of country stores located in the entrance corridors. Forty-nine of the country stores in the County (59%) are in entrance corridors where design oversight is provided by the ARB.

Neal Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum thanked the Commission for recognizing the importance of the country stores, and for encouraging private enterprise. ”I am troubled, however, by the continued conflicts that I see between the ARB and other goals of the County…I continue to be concerned that there are 22 entrance corridors to Albemarle County, and a higher level of regulation in those areas,” said Williamson.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) pointed out that the purpose of the amendment was to make country stores a more viable business, and argued that factoring in the 59 pages of guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior would be an unreasonable burden on both the owner and the ARB. The other Commissioners agreed to remove the sections of the ordinance that referenced the guidelines.

The Commission also accepted a recommendation by Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, that all existing country stores be grandfathered in, so their current uses would be considered conforming uses, giving owners further flexibility.  

The Commission’s 4-0 vote in favor of the amendments sends the ordinance to the Albemarle Board of Supervisors, which will consider the changes at a work session in the near future.  Commissioners Tom Loach, Jon Cannon, and Bill Edgerton were absent.

Ben Doernberg