Approved special use permit will allow higher density development on West Main Street

By Connie Chang
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, December 10, 2009

Modifications to a proposed mixed-use development on West Main Street were approved unanimously by the Charlottesville Planning Commission Tuesday evening. The commission approved a special use permit that will allow developer Bill Atwood’s Sycamore project to offer up to 45 dwelling units, almost three-times the previous number.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091208-CPC-1003

The site located at 1003 West Main Street was previously occupied by the “Under the Roof” furniture store and will be replaced by an approximately 66,000 square foot building composed of retail, commercial, and residential spaces.

City Planner Nick Rogers

While the proposal raised concerns regarding affordable housing, the Commission noted its enthusiasm regarding the project’s role in shaping the West Main Street corridor.

When Atwood received a previous special use permit for the project in August 2008, the Commission inserted a condition requiring two dwelling units to be set aside for affordable housing. These would be offered to people making no more than 60% of the area median income.

Earlier this year the General Assembly passed legislation which enables Charlottesville to use a more formal process for receiving affordable housing in the context of a rezoning or special use permit.

According to the new legislation, an applicant has a choice of devoting at least 5% of the square footage of a development for affordable housing units or donating $2 per square foot of the residential portion of the building to the City’s affordable housing fund.  Atwood’s West Main project would house 3,500 square feet of affordable housing space, equating to approximately 5-7 units ranging in size from 500-700 square feet.

Location of 1003 West Main St Site

Commissioner Dan Rosensweig asked staff if the city could require affordable housing units beyond  the minimum requirements specified in the legislation. However, City Planner Nick Rogers told Rosensweig the commission lacks the authority to require any additional units.

The original site plan had called for 16 larger “luxury-style” units, ranging from 2,000-2,500 square feet in size. With the approval of 45 units, a typical floor plan would become much smaller.

According to the applicant’s representative, Mark Kestner, the affordability of these units would increase with the revised proposal.

“Now we are going to be down to 500-2,000 square feet with an average of 1,200 square feet, so the affordability of the units is more likely at this point,” said Kestner.

A traffic model shows that the building would create an average of 665 additional vehicle trips a day on the West Main Street corridor. However, city planners said the site’s central location and access to bus lines would reduce residents’ dependence on cars.

Commissioner Genevieve Keller said she was concerned that the smaller apartments and higher-density would cause the building to become like a dormitory. She also lamented the reduction of commercial space on the site.

“I think our vision for West Main Street is very much one of a mixed-use area,” said Keller. “It’s disappointing to me that this will not be the prototype mixed-use development we thought it would be in the first place.”

However, Kestner ensured that the development would embody this vision.

“What we’re really after is the flexibility to create that mixed-use environment that makes this area of town a vibrant place to be,” said Kestner.

Commissioners hope this project will jumpstart the development of the West Main Street corridor, which was rezoned earlier this decade to encourage higher residential densities.

“Based on what’s on the site right now, we’re looking at an increase in retail, commercial, and residential uses,” said Chairman Jason Pearson. “Relative to what is there on site, what is proposed is a significant improvement.”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 – Neighborhood planner Nick Rogers presents staff report
• 05:40 – Commissioner Dan Rosensweig asks how a new SUP affects affordable housing requirement
• 09:00 – Rosensweig asks for clarification of Section 34-12
• 10:10 – Chairman Jason Pearson asks whether existing property zoning is relevant to review
• 12:30 – City Attorney Richard Harris addresses question
• 14:52 – Councilor Satyendra Huja asks about affordable housing requirements
• 18:33 – Rodgers addresses standard of review
• 22:33 – Applicant representative, Mark Kestner presents
• 25:56 – Rosensweig asks how many affordable units there will be
• 26:32 – Commissioner Genevieve Keller asks about the size of the affordable housing units
• 29:45 – Harris clarifies whether it is within the Commission’s purview to review the size of affordable housing units
• 31:50 – Commissioner Kurt Keesecker asks about parking
• 33:20 – Rosensweig asks why the site is “overparked”
• 34:25 – Keller asks whether there will be an on-site resident manager
• 36:45 – Keesecker asks about trip generation from the site
• 37:25 – Huja asks whether units will be for rent, sale, or combination
• 37:48 – Keller asks whether there will be building-oriented facilities on-site
• 38:50 – Pearson opens public comment period
• 43:16 – Pearson discusses previous SUP approval
• 45:15 – UVA Architect David Neuman comments on setback
• 50:00 – Keller comments on housing for medical students
• 51:10 – Pearson asks Keller about discouraging economic activity
• 52:50 – Commissioner John Santoski asks about original mixture of commercial and retail to residential space
• 56:08 – Keesecker asks whether there can be a greater density if it is conditioned to be affordable housing units
• 1:02:50 – Keller comments that she would like to see an on-site manager and more residential amenities
• 1:05:22 – Rosensweig comments on potential gentrifying impacts
• 1:09:37 – Pearson comments on structure of enabling-legislation
• 1:13:00 – Keller moves to approve recommendation
• 1:15:20 – Pearson asks for comment from applicant regarding amendments
• 1:17:37 – Rosensweig comments on overall application
• 1:21:52 – Pearson comments on mix of uses
• 1:23:10 – Motion passes 7-0

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

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

City’s Hillcrest Road residents updated on Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange impact

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Owen Peery (right) from RK&K and Angela Tucker (left) of the Charlottesville's Neighborhood Development services presented neighborhood access options to the residents of Hillcrest Road.

On August 11, 2009, the residents in the area of Hillcrest Road gathered at the Covenant School on the Route 250 Bypass to hear updates on how the entrance to their neighborhood will be impacted by the planned Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange. This project will connect Charlottesville’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway (known as McIntire Road Extended) to Route 250 with a grade-separated interchange.

The meeting was a way for the citizens to voice concerns about how traffic patterns in their neighborhood will be affected by the interchange. Common concerns were circulation within the neighborhood, vehicular speeds, effects from the Covenant School located in the neighborhood, and vehicular and pedestrian access.

Residents last met on September 30, 2008 to discuss access issues. After listening to their previous concerns, staff from consultants RK&K compiled two new options, which were presented to the residents at the meeting. Owen Peery from RK&K and Angela Tucker of the City’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services answered many questions from the citizens. Numerous citizens thanked them for their work on the project and said they could tell their previous concerns had influenced the new designs.

 “We are trying to make this as painless as possible and also improve your safety in getting out to the bypass,” said Peery.

Option 1: a cul-de-sac would be built at the end of Birdwood Road. Hillcrest Road would be the sole entrance and exit to the neighborhood. Source: RK&K

Currently Birdwood Road and Hillcrest Road, the two neighborhood access points, are both being used as entrances and exits onto Route 250. Peery said Birdwood Road could not be kept as an exit because of the lack of sufficient sight distance to see oncoming traffic. Additionally, there would be danger from increased traffic flow, and signage to warn drivers of entering vehicles would be too confusing.

The first design option would include the construction of a cul-de-sac at the intersection of Birdwood Road and Route 250, which would require all neighborhood traffic to use Hillcrest Road as the sole entrance and exit. Drivers headed towards Hillcrest Road would use the new Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange exit ramp and turn onto Hillcrest Road in a separate lane before the McIntire Road traffic signal. Drivers leaving Hillcrest Road would have to merge onto the exit ramp going east and could change direction at McIntire Road.

The second option had the same entrance and exit at Hillcrest Road, but did included an entrance only option at Birdwood Road (i.e. right turns from Route 250 East onto Birdwood Road only). Peery said this would give Birdwood Road residents another option to reach their houses more quickly, as well as an access point for fire trucks.

Option 2: the same as Option 1 with an additional entrance at Birdwood Road. Source: RK&K

One issue was the effects of traffic from the Covenant School located on Birdwood Road. Citizens commented on the importance of examining the width of Hillcrest Road in order to accommodate an increase in traffic. They said parked cars on both sides of Hillcrest Road create a one lane road, which could pose problems for school buses and other drivers.

Residents expressed concern about the possibility of an increase in posted speed on the highway, but Peery said the interchange is designed for speeds of 40 mph and roads are usually designed 5 mph higher than the speed limit that is ultimately posted. He also said RK&K has no jurisdiction over the speed limit, which will be set by City Council. He did acknowledge a concern regarding the speed of cars on the exit ramp and that turning onto Birdwood Road could be difficult.

“This plan is a starter and we will press forward and make it better any way we can,” promised Peery.

A citizen also commented on the importance of having a bicycle path from Hillcrest Road to McIntire Road and Peery responded the project always intended to have a path at that location. He said a bicycle path from Hillcrest Road would connect to the Schenk’s Greenway bicycle path, which will be transferred to the western side of McIntire Road. Peery said the design was intended to allow bicycles and pedestrians to safely and easily access trails in McIntire Park.

Tucker said a design public hearing for the interchange is currently pending for September and if approved by City Council, construction is planned to begin in the fall of 2010. The interchange is estimated to be completed within two years; however, the entire Meadowcreek Parkway cannot open until the City’s portion, the County’s portion, and the interchange are all completed. More information is located on the project’s website www.250interchange.org.

Fenwick says City Council should invest in sidewalk repairs

By Julia Glendening & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Bob Fenwick, City Council Candidate (I)

Independent City Council candidate, Bob Fenwick, held the second of his “Fenwick Forums” on July 25, 2009 at the First Amendment monument on the Downtown Mall. He plans to hold weekly forums leading up to the election on November 3. Last week he discussed the Meadowcreek Parkway and this week he focused on the importance of repairing the Charlottesville infrastructure, especially city sidewalks. Fenwick said many injuries have occurred due to faulty sidewalks. Pat Napoleon attested to this statement and told her story of a sidewalk injury.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090725-Fenwick

“Several months ago I tripped and fell on a jagged, defective downtown sidewalk,” said Napoleon. “I endured weeks of pain and effects of trauma and narrowly missed severe permanent results to my face.”

Napoleon agreed with Fenwick by saying the City should be allocating its money towards repairing the city and said she believed Fenwick is “ably and effectively taking charge” of the sidewalk problem.

“The injury amount seems to be in the thousands of dollars,” said Fenwick. “It is only a matter of time until the City of Charlottesville has a major lawsuit followed by a major million dollar judgment.”

Fenwick was asked by Charlottesville Tomorrow to comment on City Council’s current priority to fix the aging infrastructure and what he would do differently. Fenwick said if he had the power he would begin repairs immediately. He also said there would be no need to raise taxes and believed enough money could be found within the budget. Fenwick said the money saved from the Downtown Mall renovation project also could have been reallocated to fix city sidewalks.

Fenwick is running against Paul Long (I), Dave Norris (D), and Kristin Szakos (D) in the November 3, 2009 City Council election. Andrew Williams (I) is also running a write-in campaign for one of the two available seats on City Council.

See Charlottesville Tomorrow's Election Watch page for complete coverage of the City's 2009 elections.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 – Bob Fenwick begins forum on the City budget
• 06:08 – Pat Napoleon gives her example of a sidewalk injury
• 08:11 – Brian Wheeler from Charlottesville Tomorrow asks what Fenwick would do differently if elected to City Council
• 10:14 – Wheeler asks if the City has the resources to fix the infrastructure
• 10:35 – Bill Sampson asks how Fenwick would relieve pressure on overly taxed homeowners
• 13:02 – Sampson comments on amount of tax revenue going to City schools

City Council defers temporary parking permits for residents near new Onesty Pool

Charlottesville Tomorrow
By Julia Glendening
Friday, June 19, 2009

Onesty Family Aquatic Center opens June 20, 2009

On June 15, 2009, City Council deferred the establishment of a permit parking zone near the new Onesty Family Aquatic Center in Meade Park. The Onesty Pool opens on Saturday, June 20 and some residents have expressed concern that the neighborhood will lose parking spots due to overflow parking from a large number of visitors. The press release announcing the center’s opening warned that the pool will exceed capacity in its inaugural weeks.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-onesty-parking

City staff held a community meeting on June 4 to discuss possible options to maintain parking for residents in the area. The residents decided zone permit parking would be their preferred option, however, by a 3-1 vote, City Council deferred the issue until their next meeting on July 6 to examine the parking problem after the pool has opened.

The Onesty Pool will have an area of 62,000 square feet, which would require a private developer to provide 104 parking spaces. However, the Planning Commission granted a waiver on September 9, 2008 to reduce the number of parking spaces to 38. Jeanie Alexander, the City of Charlottesville's Traffic Engineer, said the Parks and Recreation Department will shuttle employees from City parking lots in order to reduce parking spaces used by employees. Alexander also confirmed there are bicycle racks and there was a revision to the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) route 1A, so a bus will directly access the pool.

“We’re trying to decrease the dependence on the automobile and increase transit, walking,” said Alexander.

Alexander said there are potentially 25 parking spaces along roads adjacent to the property, making a total of about 60 available spaces to pool users. The pool’s maximum occupancy is 255 and residents of the area voiced their opinion about the large amount of street parking which could be taken by pool patrons. At the June 4 meeting, the citizens requested the implementation of zone permit parking on streets next to the Onesty Pool to reserve some spaces for residents.

City staff recommended City Council approve a trial period of a year for the parking permits. At the time of the Council’s consideration, the areas under consideration for parking permits were:
Chesapeake Street from Meade Avenue to Fairway Avenue

• 200-320 Meade Avenue
• East Jefferson Street from 12th Street (southern leg) to Meade Avenue
• 13th Street between East Jefferson Street and Little High Street
• Little High Street from 13th Street to Meade Avenue

During the trial period, the permits would be free of charge. Usually the permits cost $25 each for residents with driveways. If a household does not have a driveway, it is eligible for two free permits. The permit would be required from 10 AM to 8 PM during the pool season and signs would be installed to indicate permit parking locations.

The Onesty Pool parking lot has 25 available spaces for visitors

Councilor David Brown said he was unsure about trying to solve a problem before it was documented. He acknowledged there might be problems for residents who do not have driveways, therefore requiring them to find a parking spot on the street.

“I’m frankly somewhat uneasy about solving a problem before we know it exists,” said Brown. He said he felt this was a preemptive complaint by the residents and the Council should wait to go through the usual permit zone process after the pool opens.

Alexander did not know the percentage of residents without driveways, but said the area does have some houses without driveways. She reiterated this would be a trial year for the permits and the Council could examine the issue again throughout the pool season.

Mayor Dave Norris said he approved of the trial parking permits because the residents of the neighborhood decided on this solution and believed numerous people will use the pool, especially in the opening season.

“We sort of created a monster here because [the pool] is going to be such a beautiful facility and I think people are going to want to flock to this facility,” Norris said. “It wasn’t necessarily intentioned as a regional facility.”

Brown recommended the Council discuss the issue during their July meeting in order to observe any parking problems during the first month and then possibly approve the trial period for the permits. Councilor Julian Taliaferro agreed that he would rather wait to hear complaints before creating a permit zone.

The Onesty pool was compared to the Washington Park pool, which has a greater maximum occupancy of 300 and fewer parking spaces, about 24 or 26. Alexander said there have been no complaints in this area.

The Council voted 3-1 to defer the application of trial parking permits in the Onesty pool area and will be reviewed on July 6.

During the same discussion, Norris said he was concerned about the future of the farmer’s market currently located in Meade Park. Brian Daly, Acting Parks and Recreation Director, assured him that the market would still be located in Meade Park and said it would have a maximum of 25 vendors, a similar amount to this past year. Daly said the pool would close at 2 PM on Wednesdays in order to keep the market in the same location, but the market might also affect parking in the area.

“Throughout the master planning process for Meade Park, it was very evident among the members of the community and the neighbors that they loved the farmer’s market and wanted to keep it,” said Daly.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 - Dave Norris introduces
• 01:13 - Jeanie Alexander presents background information
• 04:17 - Norris clarifies number of spaces
• 05:45 - Satyendra Huja asks about bicycle racks
• 06:05 - David Brown comments on whether problem exists
• 11:12 - Julian Taliaferro asks about Washington Park
• 11:18 - Norris asks questions about logistics of permits
• 12:38 - Norris begins discussion on farmer's market
• 15:45 - Huja asks whether permits can be postponed
• 17:40 - Brown recommends discussing the issue in July
• 22:10 - Brown motions to defer issue

Commission approves changes for smaller Whole Foods site plan with several conditions

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, June 11, 2009

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has approved changes to the preliminary site plan for a new Whole Foods store that was originally approved on July 22, 2008. The grocery store, which has now been reduced in size, will be built at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and the future Hillsdale Drive Extended. The Commission unanimously approved the new site plan, however, with conditions that will need to be reviewed by the applicant, S.J. Collins Enterprises, LLC.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090610-whole-foods

On June 9, 2009, the project amendments were presented by Mary Joy Scala, the City’s Preservation and Design Planner so the Commission could review compliance with City entrance corridor guidelines. Initially, the plan included a 66,600 square foot building with a three-level parking garage. The store will now be 40,000 square feet and will have a sizeable rear surface parking lot with the store fronting on Hydraulic Road instead of the new portion of Hillsdale Drive facing Gold’s Gym. Other updates included retaining walls, railings, a non-public store front on the east end, and two types of brick and a tan stone material that will be used.

Questions from the Commission were answered by Dan Tucker, the Director of Development and Construction from S.J. Collins Enterprises, LLC and the Project Manager for the new Whole Foods. He also presented the plans and clarified the placement of trees, benches, and pedestrian pathways.

Most of the Commissioners said they felt the site plan still needed to be reviewed further to eliminate logistical problems with future pedestrian and vehicular traffic. They will get that chance when the site plan returns before them at a later date, but this date has not yet been scheduled according to Commissioner Missy Creasy. 

“[The site plan] may be adequate, but I definitely see problems there that we can talk to engineering about,” Commissioner Mike Farruggio said.

Director of Development Dan Tucker presents the plans to the Planning Commission

The design included two entrances and exits for regular traffic, as well as an emergency vehicle entrance. Commissioner Cheri Lewis was concerned about the Hillsdale Drive exit that leads to a dead end at the present time. There are plans to connect Hillsdale Drive from Whole Foods to the road’s existing location near the Senior Center and the Branchlands neighborhood sometime after 2014. 

“[Hillsdale Drive] is a road that may never be built, [that] is what we are told right now,” said Lewis. It’s not just a few years behind. There is no VDOT funding for it at all.” Recently, the owners of the Regal 4 cinema announced plans to expand their theater, despite it being in the path of the Hillsdale Drive extension. 

Matt Fitch of Bohler Engineering responded that signage would be enough to direct traffic. Lewis said she did not think it was feasible to assume people would use both entrances and exits.

Commissioner Michael Osteen said he believed three pedestrian paths to the store was an excess and the interior path in the front of the store was not needed. He commented on his approval of the path within the parking lot, but also said he noticed that paths did not connect and there might be problems where they overlapped with major traffic entrances.

Tucker said that Whole Foods had expressed the need for an interior path to display seasonal merchandise and begin the shopping experience before a customer even enters the store.

Commissioner Bill Emory said he would like to see a more direct pedestrian pathway from the neighboring residential areas. He also expressed his appreciation that the design was conscious of the Meadowcreek stream rehabilitation effort.

The Commission added a number of conditions to their approval including:

• All mechanical equipment must be screened from view of a public right-of-way.
• Areas that are indicated to be brick must be real brick or “whole brick”.
• Signage must comply with signage regulations.
• The Commission stressed that the corner pedestrian entrance must be made accessible to the public, not just employees.

Although the Commissioners had many comments about the design, they said the new plan was more compatible with the entrance corridor design goals. Specifically with the addition of a rear parking lot, an increased number of trees, and a design that might encourage more pedestrian traffic.

“This will be a very good project and an asset to our community,” Commissioner Genevieve Keller said.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:00 Farruggio introduces topic
01:35 Scala presents site plan changes
09:55 Osteen begins questions
13:55 Tucker presents information about plans and answers questions
20:50 Lewis asks a question about design
26:00 Keller asks a question about materials
26:55 Nueman asks a question about storm system
28:55 Farruggio begins discussion about entrances and exits
1:09:00 Conditions are discussed

Potential Belmont restaurant owner seeks neighborhood support

By Sean Tubbs
Monday, May 4, 2009
Charlottesville Tomorrow

Hinton Avenue in Belmont has become home to several restaurants, and the owners of 814 Hinton Avenue want permission to open their own

The owners of a Belmont house have sent an open letter to their neighborhood explaining the steps they are willing to take in exchange for having their property rezoned to support the opening of a new restaurant.

Download the presentation

In April, the owners of 814 Hinton Avenue appeared before the Charlottesville Planning Commission to request the rezoning of their land from R-1 Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC). They deferred the request after several neighbors expressed concern over how existing restaurants are impacting their neighborhood.

“As Belmont residents who’ve called this property home for over five years, we know as well as anyone how the burgeoning commercial corridor along Hinton Avenue can impact nearby residences,” writes Andrew Ewell in a letter dated May 2, 2009. Ewell said when he and his family moved into their home, the house next door was being used as a residence. However, that residence was recently transformed into the Belmont Barbecue  restaurant because the underlying zoning was NCC. Ewell’s letter is an attempt to explain to the neighborhood why rezoning his property would create a new dividing line between Hinton Avenue’s commercial and residential zones.

“We believe that the re-zoning of 814 Hinton Avenue can serve as an essential first step in a comprehensive evaluation of our neighborhood’s future,” Ewell said. The letter also states that he and his fellow owners want to participate in a community-wide discussion of traffic issues in the neighborhood.
If the rezoning is granted, the 49-seat restaurant would be known as The Southern Crescent and would feature French cuisine. Ewell states that amplified music will not be performed at the establishment. No additional construction will be performed to expand the building beyond its current footprint. In addition, Ewell is volunteering the following proffers:

• Property uses will be restricted to restaurants and catering facilities, meaning any future owner who buys the property for another use would need to seek another rezoning.
• Ewell and fellow owners will construct an “S-3 buffer” along the property’s southern and western edges. The buffer is meant to be “opaque” so that it can reduce noise pollution from other Belmont establishments.
• No amplified music will be permitted as a condition of the rezoning.

Other provisions that Ewell is offering that fall short of proffers:

• Access will be via Hinton Avenue, and not the alleyway between Hinton and Belmont Avenues.
• The restaurant will enter into a shared parking agreement with Fitzgerald Tires across the street.

The Charlottesville Planning Commission will consider the rezoning again at a public hearing on May 12, 2009.

Regal Cinema to be upgraded in path of proposed Hillsdale Drive extension

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, May 1, 2009

Regal Entertainment Group announced plans today to build a major upgrade to its Regal Cinema 4 theater behind the K-Mart shopping center.  Plans include expansion into the parking lot to add five additional screens, new stadium seating & digital projection equipment.  However, the existing theater had been expected to be demolished, at least in part, to make way for the $30.5 million Hillsdale Drive Extension project connecting Hydraulic Road through the Seminole Square shopping Center to Hillsdale Drive. 

Location of theater and proposed Hillsdale Drive Ext. in Fall 2008 project update newsletter (click to enlarge)

As Charlottesville Tomorrow reported in November 2007, the Hillsdale Drive Steering Committee was told then that Regal officials were “disappointed to see the alignment shift through their property, but they understood it as a business decision.”   Apparently, Regal has made a business decision of their own to move ahead with an upgrade.  Sufficient state and federal funding is not expected for the Hillsdale Drive project until 2015 at the earliest. Part of Hillsdale was identified as a "shovel ready" project for which Charlottesville has sought federal stimulus funds.

“We were aware that there was talk of a road project either near or on our property,” said Russ Nunley, Regal’s Vice President of Marketing & Communications in an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow.  “We are unaware of where that project stands with respect to location, timeline and approvals.”

The City of Charlottesville’s Angela Tucker has been a key member of the team coordinating the Hillsdale Drive Extension project.  Tucker told Charlottesville Tomorrow that she had not been in contact with Regal since early 2008 and that she only learned today about the company’s plans to expand the theater at its current location.

“It would be unfortunate if we couldn’t work together to anticipate this road coming through the site,” said Tucker. “We thought it would be an outdated theater or a partner which we could work with on redevelopment.  However we are not yet authorized to proceed with the right of way acquisition.”  Tucker said that since Hillsdale Drive is still in the preliminary engineering phase, any right of way negotiations would be premature.

Regal’s Nunley said that his company had been looking for several years for the right place to place a modern theater in Charlottesville. “We have talked to developers, evaluated all the options, and ultimately decided to move forward with our existing land in order to expedite the process,” said Nunley.  “It would be terrific if the proposed road project enhanced access to our facility.”  Nunley said Regal would be applying for the necessary permits from the City immediately but that no schedule had been set for construction.

The expanded and remodeled facility will be called the "Regal Seminole Trail Stadium 9."  Nunley said the goal is to give moviegoers the amenities they are looking for today, including stadium seating, high-back recliner seats, and digital projection systems.

The City has been working with Whole Foods to design the southern terminus of Hillsdale Drive at Hydraulic.  The Terrace Triple Theater was previously demolished to make room for that project.  Tucker said that the work for the Whole Foods project had been significant and that its plan would “dictate the rest of the road alignment to a certain degree.”  Tucker said the City planned to hold a design public hearing on the Hillsdale Drive project in late 2009.

VDOT helps builders and citizens adjust to new secondary street standards

By Daniel Nairn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, April 27, 2009

VDOT: "Current development patterns often rely on isolated street networks."

On April 21, 2009, Representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) spoke at the Albemarle County office building as part of a state-wide “listening tour” to explain new rules for building secondary roads in Virginia. New Secondary Street Acceptance requirements were passed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in February , and will become mandatory on July 1, 2009. Until then, developers can opt to use either the older or the newer system. Although a period of public review was conducted prior to the finalization of the policy, this next round is intended to help developers and interested citizens understand the transition process.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090421-SSARpodcast

According to VDOT, the three main objectives of the new requirements are to increase of connectivity of roads, enhance pedestrian accommodations, and provide a public service. More connectivity is expected to decrease congestion, enhance emergency services, encourage pedestrians and cyclists, and open up new street design potential. The standards specifically call for narrower streets, which VDOT believes are safer, less costly, and less susceptible to water run-off.

Existing streets are not affected by the change, and non-compliant new streets are not outright forbidden. They will simply not be eligible for state maintenance.

“Essentially streets that don’t satisfy these requirements are private in nature,” said Ken King, VDOT’s Southwest Regional Operations Director. “If the purpose of the street is [to be] private it should be maintained privately.”

There are many variables in determining how these requirements are measured, and VDOT officials repeatedly admitted that there is no way to capture every possible case in a set of regulations. Requirements vary depending on whether the parcel is categorized as urban, suburban, or rural. Exceptions will be allowed by-right under specific conditions, such as a river blocking access on one side of a street. An appeal process has been set up for situations that are not covered by these exceptions.

VDOT is maintaining a web site intended to guide regular citizens through the transition process, and they are developing a more comprehensive manual that will be available some time before July 1.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

0:45 - Nick Donahue, assistant secretary of transportation, introduces secondary street requirements
1:30 – Ken King outlines new street acceptance requirements
2:40 – Problem is increasing congestion on arterial roads
3:30 – Current funding constraints require more careful spending
5:00 – The problems with current disconnected subdivisions
8:10 – Accidents and congestion occur at traffic signals
9:00 – Three main objectives of new requirements
10:30 – Regulation doesn’t prohibit private streets
11:00 – Listing of the benefits of the new system; emergency services
13:10 – Process of creating new regulations
14:15 – Graduated approach meets the diverse needs of the state
16:15 – Streets are added as a network, rather than one by one
17:35 – Introducing the connectivity index concept
18:50 – Appropriate pedestrian accommodations
21:40 – Public service requirement; excessively wide streets
25:05 – Rob Hoffricter, assistant division administrator of VDOT maintenance division, provides some specific implementation examples
27:00 – More details on the different connectivity index requirements
28:10 – Cul-de-sacs are not prohibited, only reduced in number
30:40 – Process of determining exceptions, automatic or by petition
33:35 – Details on acceptable pedestrian accommodations
35:10 – Street design standards; widths and parking
37:50 – Fee structure and inspections for new roads
40:50 –Timeline of the transition period into new policy