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

Charlottesville Planning Commission considers rezoning for another Belmont restaurant

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The building on the left is on property zoned for commercial use since 1949. The property on the right has been zoned for residential, and now the owners are seeking a rezoning to convert their home into a restaurant or catering facility

Over the past few years, several restaurants have opened up on Hinton Avenue in Charlottesville’s Belmont Neighborhood by taking advantage of a zoning designation that was given to sections of the street in 1949. There are currently six restaurants open or about to open on a two-block stretch of the road.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090414-CPC-Belmont

At their meeting on April 14, 2009, the Charlottesville Planning Commission considered a rezoning to allow for one more restaurant on the street, but not without hearing from neighborhood residents who want a clearer plan on the future of their neighborhood.

The application was from the owners of 814 Hinton Avenue, who live immediately next to a former residence that was recently converted to the Belmont BBQ restaurant. That was allowed because 816 Hinton Avenue has been zoned since 1949 as Neighborhood Commercial Center (NCC), which allows for such a use. Because the original zoning ordinance did not contain provisions for buffers, the two structures are within four feet of each other.

Property owner Andrew Ewell said that he is seeking the rezoning in part because of the lack of a buffer. He said he was originally opposed to the presence of Belmont BBQ, but that in general its operations have not had as much of an impact on his residence. But, now he wants to turn that home into a business itself. His application included several pictures depicting the many commercial properties adjoining his property, including a tire repair shop across the street. 

“Our intentions are to do everything possible to help the neighborhood with our property and to make our lot a more natural divider between the commercial corridor and the residential corridor,” Ewell said. There are 32 feet between the other side of his house and the next property line.

Andrew Ewell told the Commission that he can practically reach out and touch the restaurant from his fence. His property is on the right.

City Planner Brian Haluska said that in this case, the lack of a buffer between the two properties would make staff willing to recommend a rezoning, if Ewell would guarantee that a buffer of at least 20 feet be guaranteed. The new restaurant would not require a site plan, and thus no further review from City planning staff, unless Ewell and the other property owners opt to expand the existing building’s footprint.

For example, if Ewell opted to build a deck or a bigger kitchen, staff would have the opportunity to require more parking or ask for other demands in exchange for approval.

Haluska also said that parking would not be an obstacle to the rezoning because parking requirements for restaurants in NCC districts are not “a high hurdle to jump over” with one space required for every 250 square feet of seating area. Haluska acknowledged that as a result, parking tends to spill over into neighborhood streets.

Jesse Fiske of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association said that his group was concerned about how another eating establishment would affect traffic and parking, but also expressed concern that a rezoning may trigger changes in property values on neighboring properties.

“The greater concern is [over] what the broad sense of downtown Belmont will be when more businesses want to move in,” Fisk said. “What happens when the smoking ban happens and everyone moves outside to smoke cigarettes?”

Neighborhood resident Janet Hatcher said it was very difficult to compete with restaurant patrons for parking spots. She said she was not opposed to commercial activity on Hinton Avenue, but she wanted to know how much more her mixed-use neighborhood could absorb. Fellow neighbor Lisa Green said that she did not move to the Corner or Downtown for a reason. Belmont resident and property owner Greg Jackson called for a plan to study the future of Belmont.

Commissioner Mike Farruggio said one hurdle to granting the rezoning was the lack of parking in Belmont, but that he could see the benefits to the City getting a more natural buffer between Hinton’s commercial and residential zones.

Commissioner Dan Rosensweig said he disagreed that the neighborhood’s growth as a destination for restaurants was generally a positive step for the City and residents.

“I lived on Hinton Avenue during a period where shootings were nightly and there are many things that have happened to that area that have made the situation a lot better,” Rosensweig said. “I believe the commercial activity that has arisen since 2000 there has made that stretch of Belmont a safer place.”

Commissioner Michael Osteen said he had come into the public hearing in favor of the rezoning, but his mind became open when he heard the comments from the neighborhood. He said at some point, the neighborhood could pursue tools to restrict parking at certain times.

The application submitted for this public hearing did not include the buffer, and Ewell requested a deferral after it appeared that the rezoning would not be granted with without one. He offered to come back with “whatever proffers would help the neighborhood and help the issues with parking and with the buffer.”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Chairman Jason Pearson begins the public hearing item
• 01:50 - Staff report from City Planner Brian Haluska
• 06:20 - Commissioner Dan Rosensweig asks what kind of buffer would be required
• 10:20 - Commissioner Cheri Lewis addresses parking challenges
• 12:15 - Commissioner Lewis asks about consistency with the current land use plan
• 12:45 - Commissioner Mike Farruggio asks what other solutions might there be to accomodate extra parking
• 14:50 - Commissioner Bill Emory asks about the kind of buffering that would be required
• 19:00 - City Councilor Satyendra Huja asks about the lot's dimension, and whether a site plan would be required
• 21:15 - Public comments from the applicant, Andrew Ewell
• 27:00 - Public hearing comment from Jesse Fiske of the Belmont-Carlton Neighborhood Association
• 29:30 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident and property owner Janet Hatcher
• 32:20 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident Eleanor Biasiolli
• 35:30 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident Lisa Green
• 38:50 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident Julia Williams
• 40:30 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident Ed Housely
• 43:30 - Public hearing comment from Belmont resident Greg Jackson, co-owner of building at 826 Hinton Avenue
• 47:15 - Comments from Planning Commissioner Mike Farruggio
• 49:00 - Comments from Planning Commissioner Dan Rosensweig
• 51:00 - Comments from Planning Commissioner Michael Osteen
• 53:00 - Comments from Planning Commissioner Cheri Lewis
• 56:00 - Comments from Planning Commissioner Bill Emory
• 1:02:40 - Ewell asks for a deferral on rezoning 

Planning commission reshapes City’s definition of a bed and breakfast

Inn at Court Square in downtown Charlottesville

The Charlottesville Planning Commission voted during their meeting on January 13, 2009 to recommend a new ordinance that would provide some clarity and precision to the City’s legal definition of a Bed and Breakfast. The discussion was precipitated by last year’s by-right acceptance of a 27-room lodging facility on Oakhurst Circle under the zoning category of a “Bed and Breakfast.” The new ordinance is intended to provide some objective criteria for these uses, particularly in residential neighborhoods throughout the city.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

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

The proposed ordinance will create a three-tiered system with the following options:

Bed and Breakfast “homestay”:

• No more than three guest rooms
• Owner occupied and managed
• Food service is limited to breakfast and light fare for guests only
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• Allowed in all zoning districts

Bed and Breakfast:

• No more than eight guestrooms
• Owner occupied and managed, or occupied by a residential manager
• Food service is limited to breakfast and light fare
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• By-right in R3 and above, Special use permit in R1 and R2

Bed and Breakfast “Inn”:

• No more than fifteen guestrooms
• Owner occupied and managed, or occupied by a residential manager
• Food service may be provided
• Maximum length of stay limited to 90 days out of 365
• Special use permit in R2 and above.

In the Commission’s pre-meeting gathering, the fact that residents are already free to rent rooms from their homes without the B&B designation was discussed. The proposed ordinance will not add any new restrictions to homeowners who simply wish to rent rooms out of their house, even for long periods of time. In fact, as Commission Chairman Jason Pearson clarified, it would be technically possible to have certain rooms in a household considered as a Bed and Breakfast and others considered as a standard residential room rental.

The commissioners were in broad agreement on the motion, with a few exceptions. Commissioner Dan Rosensweig would have liked to see Bed and Breakfast “Inns” allowable not just in R2 zones, but also in R1 by Special Use Permit. However, this difference was not substantial enough to preclude his affirmative vote. The City zoning code defines both R1 and R2 as “quiet, low-density residential areas,” with the difference being that R2 zones allow a slightly broader variety of housing types. Commissioner Bill Emory, on the other hand, did vote against the proposal. He pointed out that 11 of the 12 commissioners and councilors actually live in R1 neighborhoods, and he inferred that it was unfair to subject residents in R2 zones to the possibility of a 15-room inn while forbidding it in their own neighborhoods.

The ordinance in its complete form will be presented to City Council at an upcoming meeting.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

2:00 – Staff Ms. Walden introduces the proposed ordinance
8:30 - Commissioner Lewis questions how this would affect residential homestays
15:10 – Councilor Huja wants to know why B&Bs would be allowed in R2 zone; restaurant/B&B combinations
18:40 – Joyce Casmodic, B&B homestay director, speaks at public hearing
25:10 – Candice Sloan, B&B Innkeeper, speaks at public hearing, questioned by Commission
32:50 – Commissioner Keller asks about the use of signs in B&Bs
33:50 – The Difference between “B&B Inn” and “Hotel”
39:40 – Commissioner Farruggio wants to loosen some restrictions; expand stay times to 90 days, allow more meal service
49:20 – Commissioner Pearson praises this mix of uses in residential areas
51:10 – Commissioner Emory wants to allow possibility for inns in R1
59:40 – Commissioner Lewis requests room increase for homestays to three
1:05:00 - Motion made by Commissioner Farruggio
1:10:40 – Commissioner Osteen considers possibility of students moving in
1:15:55 – More discussion on Inns in R1 and R2.
1:21:05 – Motion passes; Emory only dissent.

Planning Commission opposes development citing loss of low-income rental housing in City

The issues of affordable housing and displacement of lower-income residents received considerable attention during the Charlottesville Planning Commission’s joint public hearing on January 13, 2009. An applicant, Neighborhood Investments, LLC, sought permission to develop a Planned Urban Development (PUD) on Longwood Drive, a street near Jackson-Via Elementary school predominantly consisting of lower-income rental units. Although several Commissioners considered deferring the application to a later date, the Commission eventually voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the rezoning. Commissioners Jason Pearson and Cheri Lewis were the dissenting votes (in favor of approval), and Commissioner Michael Osteen recused himself on account of a business connection with the developer. City staff had recommended approval of the development.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091013-LongwoodDrive

The proposed plan was to construct 43 townhomes and renovate 18 existing units in two sections of Longwood Drive, at the entrance of the street and at the very end of the cul-de-sac. Since this was a “concept plan,” details concerning the specific design features of this site were not required. The applicant did, however, make proffers for trail improvements, an open space with tables and a playground, and lines of street trees.

In order to begin construction, the developer would have to demolish 18 units. Of these units, 10 are currently occupied by renters and 8 are vacant. Additionally, renters occupy all of the other 18 units slated for renovation. Since the units proposed for the development are intended for homeownership, there is potential for displacement of 28 renting households. With few affordable rental options in the City of Charlottesville, Commissioner were concerned many of these residents could conceivably be pushed outside of city limits.

The developer addressed this issue with a proffer for 15% of the units to be made available to a household whose income is 60-80% of median area income. Commissioner Bill Emory did not think the language of “made available” in the proffer was sufficiently clear, and several other commissioners expressed that this provision was not adequate mitigation. The proffer for 15% of the total units would result in 8 affordable units, which is not a 1-for-1 exchange for the affordable units lost. Furthermore, the proposed replacements are not proportional. Many of the displaced renters may not be able to afford to purchase the same home even at the proffered rate. According to Longwood Drive property owner Ellen Borwins, who spoke at the hearing, many of these units have multiple families residing in them, making it impossible to know exactly how many residents would be displaced by the project.

This application provoked some fundamental questions about affordable housing in Charlottesville. How can the city provide adequate housing for all income levels while avoiding the clustering of housing types for each income strata into specific areas? One of the merits of the Longwood Drive proposal, recognized by many of the Commissioners, was that it would provide a diversity of housing types for the street. City Planner Brian Haluska, who recommended approval of the plan, ultimately based his decision on this benefit.

“We’re trying to avoid an enclave effect,” said Haluska, “segregating our lower-income families in certain areas, making it the poor side of town.” Yet Haluska was quick to point out that, unless this movement were accompanied by an equivalent effort to incorporate lower-income housing into traditionally affluent neighborhoods, city-wide displacement would occur.

Another question raised was whether affordable housing is best dealt with on an individual basis or at a more comprehensive level. Chairman Jason Pearson questioned whether it is good policy to have “individual applicants try to demonstrate their individual actions to mitigate something that I see as a larger structural problem in the city.” According to Pearson, proffers that developers may attach to applications really only serve as a band-aid.

On the other hand, he suggested a more appropriate approach to the problem would be a “comprehensive and widespread increase in density across the city at large.” The Longwood Drive plan would increase the Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) for the site from 7.4 to 13.3. Several of the Commissioners were quick to point out that the requested density was not problematic. In fact, Chairman Pearson suggested, “This might be a site in which even great density than that which is proposed in the PUD may be appropriate.” Commissioner Genevieve Keller agreed in principle, but wanted to be sure that the resulting traffic impact would not adversely affect the neighborhood.

Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Dan Rosensweig wished that demographic and economic statistics for the city were more current, in order to make for informed decisions about the economic viability of housing. Commissioner Jason Pearson wanted more information on how other municipalities have responded to the challenge of gentrification. These Commissioners did not feel entirely equipped to strategically address the issue of affordable housing, a topic that has been highlighted by City Council as a priority for 2009.

Daniel Nairn

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:55 – Staff report for Longwood Drive application
• 09:15 – Brian Haluska’s recommendations
• 11:20 - Commissioner Farruggio asks about trail proffers
• 17:25 – Comprehensive plan for the neighborhood
• 20:50 – Dwelling units or bedrooms per acre?
• 24:10 – Commissioner Lewis asks about on-street parking
• 26:45 – Affordable housing and displacement discussion
• 36:15 – Representative of applicant presentation
• 45:30 – Commissioner Emory asks about affordability restrictions
• 50:15 - Public comment from residents of Longwood Drive
• 1:01:30 – Public comment in favor of development
• 1:04:55 – Commissioner Lewis wished the applicant were present
• 1:06:20 - Commissioners concerned about displacement
• 1:10:20 - Commissioner Keller notes this is a special site
• 1:11:35 - A motion for denial from Commissioner Emory
• 1:16:10 - Commissioner Pearson reflects on affordable housing
• 1:20:50 - Suggestion for deferral (but motion was made)
• 1:23:30 - Final vote on application

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2008

In my weekly appearance today on WINA AM 1070 on the Charlottesville Right Now program, host Coy Barefoot and I will count down Charlottesville Tomorrow's top-10 growth and development stories of 2008.

This is the third year we have counted down the top-10 growth and development stories in Charlottesville-Albemarle.  This wouldn’t be possible without the support of WINA for the Charlottesville Right Now program, host Coy Barefoot for having me on the show each week, Charlottesville Tomorrow’s donors, and the excellent reporting by my colleague Sean Tubbs and our interns and fellows.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Brian Wheeler's Top 10 Stories

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2008

1. Approved 50-year Community Water Supply Plan comes under scrutiny as proposed Ragged Mountain Dam cost estimates rise and citizen group demands look at project alternatives and dredging options. [Review all our water supply news].
2. Major new housing and retail developments held up by market forces and lack of adequate public infrastructure (e.g. sewer capacity impacting North Pointe and Albemarle Place developments). National economic recession impacts local government budgets, housing market, and new home construction.  New County residential building permits total 360 through September 2008, on track to be the lowest annual total in over a decade.
3. Supervisor Ann Mallek’s first year representing the White Hall District on the six member Albemarle County Board of Supervisors results in several significant 4-2 votes breaking the 3-3 stalemate that had existed on issues like property taxes and rural area protection strategies.
4. City and County agree to seek legislation to support formation of Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transit Authority (CARTA), a jointly run public transit authority that would take over and expand the bus operations of the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS). Separate legislation is being recommended by a work group of Supervisors and City Councilors to seek authority to raise funds for transportation projects (including transit operations) via a local sales tax increase, if approved in a voter referendum in each locality.
5. Meadowcreek Parkway construction contract (for the County’s portion) awarded to Faulconer Construction with work scheduled to begin in early 2009. City Council opts for grade-separated “signalized diamond” interchange for the Parkway’s intersection with the Route 250. The Steering Committee had recommended a design with an overpass above an oval roundabout. City Planning Commission ends their work in 2008 with a recommendation to withdraw funding for City’s portion of project which is scheduled to go to bid in early 2009. 
6. Albemarle County approves several rural area protection strategies. Three rural area ordinance changes were approved related to holding periods on family sub-divisions, stream buffers, and driveways across steep slopes. A new land use taxation revalidation program is also approved by a unanimous vote of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. 
7. County continues review of economic development policy update in comprehensive plan and eyes light industrial zoning needs. As part of a lengthy (and frequently delayed) review of the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, Supervisors overturn a Planning Commission decision and opt to continue review of Yancey Mills Business Park, a proposal for a light industrial business park in Crozet near the I-64 and Route 250 interchange. Review of the economic development goals began in November 2007 and is once again on the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for their meeting on January 7, 2009.
8. Charlottesville City Council holds retreat in Staunton, VA.  Charlottesville Tomorrow attends as only observer from public or media. 
9. Albemarle County improves citizen and media access to important planning information by providing Internet access to complete staff reports provided to the County Planning Commission and by releasing the County View web application which allows detailed tracking of planning and building applications. Combined with the County’s GISWEB application and complete access to Board of Supervisor meeting materials and podcasts, the County has an impressive collection of material available online.
10. Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Pie Day 2008.  No other topic generated as much positive feedback and listener calls as Coy and Brian’s ongoing radio dialogue about homemade pies.

Brian’s predictions for the top stories of 2009

• 50-year Community Water Supply Plan
• Results of government efficiency reviews released by City and County.  What changes will be implemented?
• Local elections will be held for City Council and Board of Supervisors (see Election Watch 2009)
• General Assembly will block local sales tax increase for transportation funding and continue to shrink VDOT funding allocations to Charlottesville-Albemarle
• Downtown Mall renovations will be completed.  Will it be under budget and on schedule? Monitor the progress here.
• Local governments will face budget challenges as recession continues.  Revenue sharing from County to City will increase by $4 million to around $18 million a year.
• Places29 Master Plan will be unveiled.  Will it be approved?
• Crozet Master Plan’s first 5-year review gets underway
• Meadowcreek Parkway construction gets underway. Will a lawsuit stall City’s portion?
• Community will review of ASAP’s optimal population study findings

The best way to keep track of these and other stories about growth and development is to subscribe to our free weekly e-mail updates.  Thanks for listening, reading, and commenting in 2008!

Brian Wheeler

City Planning Commission recommends against changing density calculation

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has unanimously voted against a proposal that would potentially increase the density of multi-family housing zones around the University of Virginia. The proposal was to change the units of the density requirements for medium-density residential districts (R-3), Medium-density University residential (R-UMD), and High-density University residential (R-UHD) from dwelling units-per-acre (DUA) to bedrooms-per-acre. The Commission made their recommendation at their meeting on November 11, 2008.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20081111-bedroom

Table reflecting the potential debsity impacts of the proposed change

Various developers in the University area approached City staff with the proposal in an effort to gain more flexibility to respond to market demands. Given the current density maximums of 21, 43, or 64 DUA, developers claim they are forced to build only 4-bedroom units, which is the maximum allowable, since the land is priced with the assumption that occupancy will be maximized. Switching the requirements to bedrooms-per-acre would allow developers to build more 1 or 2-bedroom units without cutting into their total number of residents. For example, R-3 would change from allowing 21 DUA to 84 bedrooms-per-acre. The total number of bedrooms would not change and they could be allocated into units differently.

During analysis, planning staff determined that even if the number of bedrooms would stay the same, the total number of occupants could potentially rise. This is because the City calculates restrictions on the number of unrelated persons living in the same property in units – 4 persons per unit. Under the proposed changes, residents, looking to cut rental costs, would be legally allowed to share a bedroom with another person. Staff sees this potential for increased density as a problem, because it could increase the number of cars adding to parking and traffic congestion in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Genevieve Keller asked whether there was any data on housing costs to determine whether this change could provide more affordable housing. While the City has no data on this, they surmised that doubling up in a bedroom would be cheaper than being alone. City Councilor David Brown inquired about whether many students would choose to live with a roommate. Commissioner Michael Osteen, who owns student-rental housing himself, questioned whether students really would double up even if given the option.  Most of them are eager to get out of dorm-style living arrangements. David Neuman, Architect for the University, concurred.

Nevertheless, Commissioner Osteen did not want to risk the possibility of a density increase. According to Osteen, the increasing density here would be “catastrophic to areas around it.” This was the general sentiment of the rest of the commission, and they recommended denial of the zoning text amendment.

Daniel Nairn