Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Applicant defers on Fry’s Spring in-fill development

In 2003, the City of Charlottesville amended its zoning ordinance to give City planners and developers additional tools to increase the residential density of the City. One such mechanism is the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning classification, which allows for smaller lot sizes.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080408-CPC-Hill-Center.mp3

In the past few years, at least two sections of the Fry’s Spring neighborhood have been rezoned as Planned Unit Developments – Cherry Hill and Huntley. Both projects have pitted the City’s interest in increasing the housing stock against the desire of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association (FSNA) to retain the character of their community.

Another application for a PUD came before the Planning Commission and City Council during a joint public hearing on April 8, 2008. Hill and Center LLC, a development of Tom Hickman and Jack Stoner, sought the rezoning of nearly 2.5 acres at the ends of Hill Street and Center Avenue from R-2 to PUD. The conceptual plan submitted with the application shows 12 single-family detached units, but no specific number of units was cited in the staff report.  The applicant proposed extending Hill and Center streets to provide vehicular access to the sites.
The developable area of the property is constrained by a stream, an 18-inch water line and very steep topography.  The land is one of the only remaining undeveloped tracts in the area.

The FSNA voted in December 2007 to oppose the rezoning, citing the loss of forest, an increase in traffic, as well as various environmental concerns. Their disapproval came despite a FSNA task force that worked closely with Hickman as plans for the project evolved.

Before reading his staff report, City Planner Brian Haluska reminded the Commission that if they were to vote to recommend denial of the rezoning, they could only do so based on the merits of the property under consideration and not any additional prior rezonings in the neighborhood.

Under the existing zoning, Haluska said the applicant could build 5 units, depending on how they were oriented. Staff’s recommendation was to deny the application in part because there is no interconnection between Hill and Center Streets.

“I think the impact in that area  and the impact to that neighborhood would be too much for that street,” Haluska said.

City Councilor Satyendra Huja said a member of the FSNA had told him the units would have accessory apartments, meaning the total number of dwelling units would be double what is listed in the staff report.  Haluska explained that under City code, an accessory apartment is considered to officially be part of the house it is attached to, and can only be rented out if the owner resides on the property. Otherwise it would be considered a duplex.

Neither Jack Stoner or Tom Hickman were present for the public hearing, so it was left to Chris Murray of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) to present the application to the Planning Commission.  JABA is a partner in the development  and would invest in half the homes to be built.

“We seek to increase the stock of senior-friendly and affordable housing in the City and to create intergenerational neighborhoods,” Murray said. He said the Hill and Center project was an attempt to address the lack of supply of such houses, given that the baby boom generation is beginning to retire. The idea is to create residential units with universal design principles such as wider doorways and large rooms designed to allow an elderly couple to live on one floor.  Accessory apartments would be created for each unit and would be marketed to nursing students. 

“We believe that an apartment at market rate could reduce the housing cost for the senior in that house by almost 40%,” Murray said.

Murray said there were no large developable tracts left in Charlottesville, and that it was necessary to pursue “in-fill development on marginal land.” He reminded the Commission that increased density would help grow the demand for the bus lines that currently serve the neighborhood.

Commissioner Genevieve Keller asked Murray if he could guarantee that units in the development would only be sold to the elderly. Murray responded that was not possible, but that every effort would be made to make the units senior-friendly. Keller said that was admirable, but encouraged JABA to also put efforts into retrofitting existing home.

Thirteen people spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Peter Hedlund, FSNA President, listed many reasons why he found fault with the project, including increased traffic, the inability of the City to police who would live there, and an excess of new development in the neighborhood.  He encouraged the City to consider purchasing the property to develop a new park, something mentioned by several other citizens.

This view from the end of Hill Street illustrates the steep topography of the property

Other speakers singled out different reasons why they felt the rezoning would not be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  Charles King said previous PUDs have been ecological disasters, and that the loss of tree canopy in the community would not be a benefit to the City. Carrie Hannan said accessory apartments would not offset the cost of owning the home, because such units are assessed accordingly. Morgan McCloud said the increased density  would not fit with the existing character of the neighborhood, which consists of single-family units and duplexes. Architect Michael Wenrick said the environment would be inhospitable to seniors due to the extreme topography.  Michael Petrus said the site currently acts as a filter for the watershed, and that water quality would be affected as a result.  Dave Timmerman said Center Avenue is more like an alley than a real street. 

After the public hearing, Commissioners had the chance to weigh in. Keller began by saying
she felt the steep slope ordinance was designed to prevent developments such as this.  Commissioner Hosea Mitchell said he was at first enthusiastic about the proposal, but his support waned after hearing the comments from the public.  Commissioner Cheri Lewis said she could support a PUD under different circumstances, but that the slopes were too steep to support the proposed density. Commissioner Dan Rosensweig said he supported JABA’s need to find more places to build, but that this site was not appropriate. 

Commissioner Michael Osteen agreed with his colleagues, but pointed out that under the existing zoning, the owner had the right to clear cut without any review from the City, but a PUD would at least give the trees some protection via site plan review. PUDs require 15% of the land be left in open space, and the applicant had proposed keeping half of the 2.5 acres in open space.

After the public hearing and the Commissioner’s discussion, Murray requested a deferral on behalf of the applicant. That will allow Hill & Center LLC to submit a new conceptual plan. There is no time limit for either the City or the applicant to act.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 1:00 - Chairman Jason Pearson introduces the item
• 1:38 - Staff report from Jason Haluska
• 11:07 - Councilor Huja asks about the possibility of accessory apartments
• 13:48 - Commissioner Rosensweig asks Haluska if can suggest a more appropriate density
• 15:00 - Commissioner Keller asks about applicant's "proffer" for 50% percent ownership by JABA
• 17:32 - Commissioner Mitchell asks about project's compliance with affordability guidelines, followed by a discussion of how to enforce guidelines
• 22:15 - Councilor Huja asks about whether "universal design" principles will be required for all units
• 24:08 - Mayor Dave Norris asks how project will accomodate additional need for parking
• 25:02 - Commissioner Rosensweig asks about the conceptual plan's lack of pedestrian connectivity to Shamrock
• 26:12 - Chris Murray of JABA presents the application to the Commission
• 34:03 - Commissioner Mitchell asks how many of the units will be built with universal design, Murray says he's not sure
• 35:06 - Commissioner Rosensweig asks about development's commitment to providing at least one affordable unit
• 37:00 - Commissioner Keller asks if the developers can guarantee that only the elderly can purchase the units
• 39:28 - Chairman Jason Pearson asks Commissioners to disclose any contact they've had with applicant and members of the public
• 42:00 - Commissioner Mitchell asks a question about the timing of the application, and whether the applicant should defer before the public hearing is opened, with answers from Brian Haluska
• 46:22 - Public hearing begins with Peter Hedlund, President of the Fry's Spring Neighborhood Association
• 49:46 - Fry's Spring resident Andrea Weider speaks against the proposal
• 52:25 - Fry's Spring resident Charles King speaks against the proposal
• 55:47 - Fry's Spring resident Adrienne Dent speaks against the proposal
• 58:00 - Fry's Spring resident Carrie Hannan speaks against the proposal
• 59:28 - Fry's Spring resident Franklin speaks against the proposal
• 1:01:11 - Fry's Spring resident Morgan McCloud speaks against the proposal
• 1:03:05 - Fry's Spring resident Lena Rubin speaks against the proposal
• 1:05:06 - Fry's Spring resident Michael Wenrich speaks against the proposal
• 1:07:44 - Fry's Spring resident Michael Petrus speaks against the proposal
• 1:11:13 - Fry's Spring resident David Timmerman speaks against the proposal
• 1:14:12 - Fry's Spring resident Joe Mooney speaks against the proposal
• 1:16:40 - Fry's Spring resident Jack Gwynn speaks against the proposal
• 1:19:31 - Commission discussion begins, followed by request of deferral by applicant

Sean Tubbs

Commission wants “holistic approach” to new Whole Foods store

Jim Tolbert (standing) briefs Commission and City staff on Hillsdale Road Extended project

A project to build a new Whole Foods grocery store in the City of Charlottesville is causing some Charlottesville Planning Commissioners to raise concerns about the way it is moving through the development process.  The complications occur because the developer is also designing and constructing the southern terminus of Hillsdale Drive Extended.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080311-CPC-Hillsdale-Extension.mp3

The developer, Meadowbrook Creek LLC, has broken the Whole Foods project into three phases. Phase I of construction has involved the demolition of the former Terrace Theater and the car wash.  According to City Attorney Craig Brown, the Commission did not have to approve that action. In January, the Commission approved a steep slopes waiver, though Commissioner Cheri Lewis remarked that she could not remember a time when such a waiver had been granted without a site plan.

Phase II involves construction of the portion of Hillsdale Drive Extended on the Whole Foods property, as well as improvements to the existing parking lot currently used by K-Mart. In February, the applicant requested a deferral of consideration of a preliminary site plan for the section of road as well as a ruling on how the road would meet entrance corridor guidelines.  Phase III will involve construction of the Whole Foods itself, and the applicant has not yet submitted a site plan.

The land is designated in the City’s comprehensive plan as commercial, and is zoned as Highway Corridor with Entrance Corridor Overlay. The Planning Commission must sign off on any site plan in a location designated as Entrance Corridor, a land use specification which allows the City to exercise additional design scrutiny. The City Code which enables the review specifies the following guidelines for Hydraulic Road:

“There is potential for redevelopment of the older sites along the corridor…. Large new buildings should be designed to reduce mass.…Opportunities include: building closer to Hydraulic Road, adding landscaping along the streets and in parking lots, and creating pedestrian and auto connectivity within and between developments….West of Rt. 29 pedestrian connections would be important if older commercial and residential properties along Hydraulic Road are redeveloped.”

Phase II was again deferred by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting in March.  The decision to ask the applicant to defer came during the Commission’s informal “gathering” that takes place in a Neighborhood Development conference room. Despite its location, the meeting is public and significant business matters are regularly discussed.

However, a potential right of way issue may slow the project down. Commissioner Mike Farruggio asked about a letter received from a representative of Kroger regarding the design of the interchange with Hydraulic Road and Hillsdale Drive. That prompted Neighborhood Services Director Jim Tolbert to address the Commission.

Tolbert acknowledged that a potential right-of-way negotiation could be holding up the process. He said the City has been designing the new roadway for two years and has established an alignment. Tolbert said the developer, Meadowbrook Creek, has agreed to a City request to build Hillsdale as part of its project, and the developer has hired an engineering firm to design its section of the new road.

“Some of that design goes across [Hydraulic] Road,” Tolbert said. “We knew going in with Hillsdale that to do it appropriately is going to need Kroger to give up the light that’s at [their entrance across from K-Mart] and eventually [move it] down where Hillsdale comes out.”

The City will still pay for a portion of the road on the developer’s property, according to Tolbert, but added it would not do so until it had acquired right-of-way. He suggested that some property might need to be condemned if permission is not given by landowners, but that negotiations are on-going.

The letter from Kroger representative Fenton Childers raises the company’s concern that delivery trucks would not be able to use the new signalized entrance. Childers wrote that Kroger does not object to the application, which would create a new grocery store across the street.

Commissioner Cheri Lewis asked why there was a rush to consider the issue, given that negotiations are on-going, and that the rest of the site plan (Phase III) has not yet been submitted.  Commissioner Hosea Mitchell said he wasn’t sure what he was being asked to approve.

“There are a lot of things that give me heartburn, and I’d like to look at a more total package,” he said.“There are traffic issues. There are infrastructure issues,”  Mitchell said.

Tolbert recommended the Commission deny the application if it felt it were incomplete. He said one reason the site plan is not complete is because the developer has hired two engineering firms; one to design the roadway, and one to design the building. So far, the building design is not complete.

“The intent all along for everybody was there was going to be right-of-way there,” Tolbert said, but added that hadn’t happened yet. He said the site plan for Whole Foods isn’t “anywhere near ready.”

Farruggio asked if the item could be deferred. Tolbert got on the phone to contact the developer to let him know the position of the Commission, and the Commissioner adjourned from the “gathering” to reconvene ten minutes later in City Council Chambers.

But, the item never came up during the regular meeting. Chairman Bill Lucy was about to adjourn the meeting, when Mitchell suggested taking a “holistic approach” to the project, and raised concern that the City’s transportation and sewer infrastructure would not be enough to support the project.

Missy Creasy said she agreed, and that City staff would be speaking with the applicant to work through the details of the site plan. Mitchell asked if the applicants could meet with the Commission, and Creasy said staff had been given that option. Lucy suggested placing the item on the agenda for the March 25 work session.

Creasy said the site plan is not close to being ready for the Whole Foods building. Lewis suggested that the applicant might also consider making a preliminary appearance at the Commission’s next regular meeting on April 8.

Farruggio expressed concern that Hydraulic Road in between the 250 bypass and Route 29 could present access management problems.  “It’s a half-mile stretch of road and there are six intersections,” Farruggio said. Creasy said the city’s traffic engineer, Jeannie Alexander, is working on a solution to reduce the number of intersections.

Sean Tubbs

The changing face of the UVA medical center

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

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

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

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

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

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

The four major hospital building projects are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights of Audio

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

Brian Wheeler

Council gets update on Martha Jefferson’s future

Later this month, the firm Economic Research Associates (ERA) will present a comprehensive market study of the property currently owned and used by Martha Jefferson Hospital. A preview of this report was presented to the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Association in late January, and again to City Council at a work session on February 11, 2008.  Hospital spokesman Steve Bowers says the full report will be available within the next two weeks, and will be used to help the hospital identify a single redevelopment partner.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080211-CC-MJH.mp3

“[ERA’s] product is going to be a research tool that developers can literally take to the bank to help finance their project,” said Bowers. The hospital wants a partner that will create a mixed-use development that energizes the High Street corridor. The ERA report will outline the feasibility of hotels, condos, offices, and other potential re-uses.

Councilors were generally supportive of Bower’s presentation, and the hospital’s approach. They asked that some form of a citizen oversight panel be set up to help coordinate communications between the hospital, the City, and the neighborhood. Bowers said the hospital is in the process of doing so, and that the hospital would seek input from Council on who should make up that body.

These houses on Locust Avenue will be preserved, according to Martha Jefferson spokesman Steve Bowers

Councilor Julian Taliaferro said he would like to see the five houses owned by the hospital along Locust Avenue returned to their original use as residences. Councilor Satyendra Huja said he wanted affordable living choices to be built into the project. Councilor David Brown said he would like to know more about the future of other medical businesses in the area. Mayor Dave Norris said he would like to see the historic portion of the existing hospital preserved in some way to preserve the fabric of the neighborhood.

Bowers said the hospital’s intention is to narrow the field of developer partners by the summer.
In May, the Charlottesville Community Design Center will present the work of UVa School of Architecture students who have been tasked with coming up with conceptual designs of their own.

Sean Tubbs

Martha Jefferson describes path to redevelopment for 9-acre site

Martha Jefferson's Steve Bowers

The Martha Jefferson Hospital expects to move to a new location on Route 250 in Albemarle County by the year 2012. Before then, the hospital hopes to work with the City and surrounding neighborhoods to find a single business partner to redevelop the current nine-acre downtown campus.

“This is a once in a generation opportunity,” says Steve Bowers, the hospital’s spokesman and the man coordinating the hospital’s efforts to shepherd the site of its soon-to-be-former home. 

Bowers gave an update to the Martha Jefferson Neighborhood Association at its meeting on January 31, 2008.  About three dozen people took seats in the hospital’s Education Center to hear Bowers share information about Martha Jefferson’s plans. At the moment, the only thing that is certain is that the hospital is moving.  Issues up in the air include determining the future uses at the site, the amount of demolition needed to support redevelopment, and the hospital’s role in a development deal.

Bowers began his presentation by saying the main goal for the site is to “optimize” redevelopment, and pledged to the neighborhood that the site will not go to the highest bidder. Bowers said there will be no rush to find a new tenant, and that a patient approach will benefit the whole community. Bowers said the meeting presented an opportunity for the hospital to rekindle a spirit of collaboration with the neighborhood. He told the crowd that their needs would come first.

However, Bowers said the hospital needs the site to be “in transition” by 2012, when all hospital operations are scheduled to be transferred to the Pantops campus.  Bowers told the crowd the process will be affected by the possibility of recession, the credit crunch, and a declining housing market. On the other hand, he said national trends are towards infill redevelopment, and that downtown living has become more popular.
The next step in the process will be the release of a market and demand report from the firm Economic Research Associates. They’ve spent the past nine months evaluating various redevelopment scenarios and their report is due in mid-February.

Bowers gave a few hints at what is in the report. He said one early indication is that an aging national population has created a high demand for “walkable” communities. With the downtown mall only a few blocks away, the current campus could satisfy that demand. With retail elements such as a grocery store, Bowers said a new community built on the footprint of Martha Jefferson could help the City compete with similar mixed used developments such as Biscuit Run or North Pointe.

Bowers said the report will also evaluate the site’s potential use for a hotel/condominium complex geared towards UVa alumni. In these facilities, owners purchase a room they can use during their trips back home that is used as a hotel room the rest of the year. They are becoming increasingly popular in communities with large universities. Bowers said the University of Virginia Health System has not yet expressed any interest in using the existing hospital facility.

Bowers said the ERA report has ruled out converting the campus to a research and development park. He said that “wet-labs” would use as much water if not more as the hospital. The report does acknowledge a demand for office space, though Bowers that did not necessarily mean an office park.

About three dozen people attended the meeting

An audience member asked if retirement communities were being considered as a redevelopment partner, because he and his wife would like the option to stay nearby. He pointed out that the hospital is already equipped with the right size rooms. Bowers said that the hospital structure could remain, but that the power plant and related issues might make reusing the hospital less financially feasible. He said another obstacle to using the existing structure is that it does not get much light.

“There are very few uses for a building without light,” he said. He also said the existing power plant would need to be replaced, and that would be very expensive.

After the ERA report comes out, the hospital will discuss the possibility with potential partners. Bowers said the field of suitors would be narrowed down by the summer.

Bowers said the hospital’s first preference is to find a single partner who will take on the redevelopment of the whole site. He said that would be the simplest way to make a deal, and ensure that any necessary infrastructure upgrades at the site would be implemented. “We don’t want a cherry picker,” he said. Bowers said the hospital wanted to partner with someone with a national track record.

Bowers gave the community several assurances. First, no one will be displaced as part of the redevelopment process. Second, the redeveloped campus would accommodate the City’s desire for growth while accommodating the neighborhood’s desire to stay intact. As a sign to show the hospital’s commitment to this principle, Bowers said five houses on Locust Avenue would be preserved. “If we keep something downtown, this might be a place to do it,” he said. The houses are currently used by the hospital in a variety of support capacities, and City Councilor David Brown stood at the meeting to say he would support down-zoning so they can be used as residences once more.

Another audience member asked what would happen if a suitor wasn’t found by 2012. Bowers said he didn’t want to see the hospital end up as an empty hulk, but that demolition would not be the hospital’s call. The hospital may or may not end up as an equity partner in the redevelopment project, but that would depend on the structure of the deal. While there have been no firm offers, Bowers said his office has had a handful of meetings with interested parties.

The process of how that partner will be determined has not been finalized, but Bowers said whoever is selected must have a commitment to becoming part of the neighborhood. He pointed to the recent decision by the Jefferson Scholars Foundation to demolish a house near the University to make way for their new headquarters. “That’s what we’re trying to avoid,” he said.

“The redevelopment partner will be making a bet on the future of downtown,” Bowers said.

Sean Tubbs

City Planning Commission recommends denial of nine-story development at West Main/Ridge-McIntire

The Commission voted 4-2 to deny approval of rezoning of the project

The City Planning Commission has voted 4-2 to recommend denial of an application to rezone the northwest corner of the intersection of Ridge-McIntire West Main Street.  Some of the commissioners felt the developers’ proffers did not go far enough to address affordable housing and sewer capacity.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070814-CpC-9-story.mp3

The Cathford Group has purchased three properties along the corner, and plans to build a mixed-use building on 1.09 acres of land that's currently zoned in the "West Main North" classification. That would limit by-right development four stories and 21 housing units. Rezoning to Downtown Corridor would allow for a density of 87 housing units and a total building height of 101 feet.

The proposed building will be a mixed-use structure encompassing over 47,000 square feet. At least 18,000 square feet will be contained in four retail spaces on the first floor. Residential units will be in a six-story tower rising above West Main.

Earlier this year, an advisory committee consisting of members of the Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Commission recommended changing the zoning of that corner to Downtown Corridor.

According to the staff report, the development would likely yield 79 units, 4 retail shops, with over 180 parking spaces built underneath. The developer offered proffers to limit the traffic access points to 4th Street and McIntire Road, to provide streetscape improvements, and to designate two units as "affordable."  The two properties on West Main Street were built in the middle of the last century, at a time when the West Main Corridor was zoned under a series of business classifications. In the 2003 city-wide zoning map adjustments, the lots were designated as West Main North Mixed Use Corridor.

The West Main Corridor designation was established in 2003 to provide for "low-intensity mixed-use development" along the corridor. But City Planner Ebony Walden writes in the staff report that the property "has conditions that are distinctly different from the rest of the North Main Corridor" and called the lot a gateway to downtown. The space "commands a larger more prominent building than current West Main North zoning allows."

"The residential and retails uses will increase the pedestrian traffic in this area, generate 18-hour activity on West Main Street and provide a good transition to the Downtown Mall."

The applicant proposes any improvements would be consistent with the West Main Street Open Space and Streetscape Schematics Plan adopted by City Council in 2004. The costs are estimated at being greater than $200,000.

Before the Public Hearing, City Planner Ebony Walden passed out a more detailed amendment to the affordable housing proffer. The developer is willing to pay a $200,000 donation to the Piedmont Housing Alliance to assist in the purchases of affordable units in the building.

Commissioner Mike Faruggio asked if it was appropriate for the proffer to be specified to go to one agency, and also asked how the sum of $200,000 compared to the city's goal of designating 15% of all new units considered "affordable."

Developer Bob Englander said the choice of going with the Piedmont Housing Alliance is because PHA has a track record in the community.

"I was initially concerned about cash proffers in general because once they get out of our hands and into someone else's hands, we don't know what happens with those," Englander said. "We can talk long and hard about which [organization] is the best and the brightest, but we felt we needed to make a decision."

Faruggio remained concerned that only 2.5 percent of the units would be classified as affordable. "2.5 percent is 12.5 less than what we shoot for," he said.

"If we were to provide 15 percent of the units as affordable in this particular location, then we could not afford to do the deal," said Englander. "We have given what we feel comfortable and is the maximum that we can do."

City Councilor Dave Norris said the City recently considered one project that had 21 percent of its units designated as affordable, and that the County is writing a new proffer policy which requests 15 percent of units in new developments be deemed “affordable.” Given such expectations by local governments, Norris asked Englander how he arrived at his figures. Englander responded that his plan would serve the community by making the corner more pedestrian-friendly. "We have now brought eighty families downtown that heretofore would have been driving downtown, so we think we have lessened the traffic on the roads."

While a preliminary assessment of sewer capacity has been conducted by the developer, the staff report suggested that additional analysis be conducted by the applicant. Walden responded additional studies have to be done to make sure that the sewer system can absorb a quadrupling the density at the space. "There is currently an eight-inch line there, and the engineer for the applicant assessed that given the increased flow you would need an eight-inch line, which is currently there," she said.

"We should be certain that the infrastructure of our city supports any increased density," said Commissioner Hosea Mitchell.  Englander pointed out that there is a 10-inch sewer line that runs along 4th Street, and that there is more than enough capacity to accommodate the sewer and storm water at the project site.

Albemarle County resident Paul Grady told the Commission that the intersection at Ridge-McIntire/West Main Street has never worked effectively. "It's always occurred to me that that location would be a perfect location for a roundabout," he said. City Councilor Dave Norris wanted to know if that was still feasible. Ebony Walden responded that a traffic study has been requested as part of the site plan is required because of the extra trips that will be generated by the development. Commissioner Jon Fink said the city would have to do something to maintain the level of service at the intersection.

During the public meeting, former City Council candidate Jennifer McKeever asked the Commission to consider the traffic impacts, especially on a very congested 4th Street. "Traffic has to be one of our utmost concerns at this particular site," she said.

Commissioner Bill Lucy says he supports the development, but also wondered if the shifting housing market would support the increased housing units. Fink said the application has come a long way, and that it would lead to other high-density developments along the West Main and Downtown corridors.

Commissioner Faruggio said he agrees with the development, but had questions whether the proffers adequately offset extra infrastructure needs that may be required when the density is quadrupled. He said he was happy with the $200,000 in proffers for streetscape improvements, but was not sure if the developer had gone far enough in terms of affordable housing.

Commissioner Mitchell called it a slick project, but he said it would be irresponsible of the commission to approve without more details on sewer capacity and traffic impacts.

Commissioner Michael Osteen was concerned that the project did not specifically outline how it would implement green building practices, and also thought the affordable housing proffers did not go far enough, given the density increase at the site. "There should be more of a commitment to our community's problem of affordable housing."

Commissioner Faruggio recommended a motion to deny approval, which carried 4-2. Commissioners Mitchell, Osteen, Pearson and Faruggio voted to deny approval. Commissioners Lucy and Fink approved the project. Commissioner Cheri Lewis did not attend the meeting.

Senior Statesmen discuss the challenges of growth and development

(L to R) Jack Marshall (ASAP), Jeff Werner (PEC), Neil Williamson (FEF)

On April 11, 2007, the Senior Statesmen of Virginia (SSV) held their monthly meeting at the Northside Library in Charlottesville, VA.  The three invited panelists, among the community's most familiar faces when it comes to discussions of local growth and development issues, shared their views on topics including land use, transportation, population growth, government regulation, and property rights. 

The panelists were:

Jack Marshall, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population
Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council
Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum

Before an audience of about forty people, each panelist made a presentation about the role of their organization and provided their assessment of the growth and development challenges facing local government and our community at-large.

President Don Wells, described the Senior Statesmen "as a vehicle for senior citizens to get together to learn about issues, to discuss them, but also to potentially take action... to influence the political process."

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070411-SSV-Growth.MP3

Audio pointers and representative quotes:

• 00:08:30 -- Jack Marshall, ASAP
  • "A small but powerful group has been delighted with the relentlessly expanding local population.  For its members enjoy profits from land speculation and construction, or from an expanding market for whatever they sell."
  • "Although 'smart growth' is necessary, ASAP argues that it's not sufficient. Smart growth addresses where and how a community's population expands, but not whether it should expand. Over the long haul, smart growth merely accommodates growth. ASAP's approach goes beyond smart growth by contending that every community should try to identify its optimal population size, then work to reach and maintain a stationary size at that point."
  • "The only thing more radical than stopping growth is not stopping growth."
• 00:21:35 -- Jeff Werner, PEC
  • "We support growth and development at a pace and in a pattern that is fiscally responsible and not a burden on taxpayers."
  • "In total, the current residential pipeline for the [County's] growth area and for the [City of Charlottesville] is now over 18,000 units.  This does not include the rural area...which is another 30,000 to 50,000 lots. That 18,000 units in the growth area and the City is enough for approximately 42,000 additional people.  In other words, while the development community argues that the growth area needs to be expanded, their own proposals clearly indicate that such an expansion may not be necessary for at least another generation."
• 00:37:14 -- Neil Williamson, FEF
  • "As a purpose, [the Free Enterprise Forum] strive to provide balance to the public debate.  We feel that without such balance issues are often skewered by special interest groups which may not have a full understanding of the community ramifications for the solutions they propose."
  • "It is true that we would like to see more development in the development area.  That is clear. That's where the infrastructure should be placed.  It is also true that property rights are important."
  • "Right now the rural areas, for the past three or four years, probably the past seven years, have been at or above the [level] of development in the development areas.  I firmly believe that is due to government regulation making it difficult to develop in the development areas. This is something I see starting to change."
  • "Jack [Marshall] had mentioned, 'Are there limits to growth in our future.'  I think that is a very relevant question.  The other question is who should place those limits....Placing an arbitrary number [on population] is digging a moat around the County.  And who gets to man the bridge?"
  • "There are some in Albemarle County that want to place this population cap.  I find that elitist and it would be the equivalent of digging a moat."
• 00:48:20 -- Q&A

Brian Wheeler

 

Good article on growth and development

Today's Washington Post has a great front page article that discusses some growth and development issues relevant to Charlottesville-Albemarle (W. Post 2/8/07: Area Officials Struggle To Fit Lid on Growth).

"To hear some activists and local officials in Virginia tell it, the key to slowing rampant growth is to follow the lead of many Maryland counties: Ban development where roads and schools are crowded. But here is what that method has accomplished in Anne Arundel County...development is being pushed to more rural parts of the state less suited to handle it."

That is the concern raised most frequently by County Supervisor David Slutzky.  At the recent ASAP forum on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, Mr. Slutzky said, "We know we’ve got 5% of the County allocated to growth and 95% of the County is designated rural area and it’s not supposed to be having growth happen in it. I don’t know if you’ve noticed driving out Garth Road, but growth’s happening in it. It’s a serious problem, one that concerns me greatly."

We are certainly building homes in Albemarle's rural fields, farms and forests.  However, and here is where I would like to draw a contrast to Anne Arundel County, MD and the first points made in the Washington Post article--we have been doing so at a consistent rate for over a decade, about 300 homes a year [see chart on this post from last Summer].  Our Board of Supervisors would all certainly like to see that number as close to zero as possible.  How we best do that is at the heart of the debate about rural area protection strategies. 

Instead, where we see dramatic increases is in the amount of housing approved in the growth areas, much of which has not been built.  We simply don't have the population growth facing these localities around Washington, D.C. and there is apparently not a market for these homes in Charlottesville-Albemarle to be built quickly.  One of the ramifications of that market condition is that the affordable housing that has been proffered (over 600 units in Albemarle) is also not getting built.

Finally, the article has a good summary of the politics of growth before the Virginia General Assembly.  Here is a lengthy quote which covers a number of the frequently asked questions about the powers of local government, proffers, and impact fees:

In Richmond, Kaine again proposed legislation that would make it easier for Virginia counties to reject requests to rezone properties for more intense development if officials determine that it would overwhelm local roads. The legislation was blocked recently under opposition from developers but might resurface in another form.

But even if the proposal is revived, there are doubts among some officials about how much Kaine's plan would accomplish, since the legislation essentially spelled out a power that many local officials say they already have.

The proposal's supporters say it would help anyway because, by clarifying local authority, it would give counties more confidence to reject requests without fear of being taken to court by developers.

"You can say no, but it's always a crapshoot," said Loudoun Supervisor James Burton (I-Blue Ridge). "The more arrows we have in the quiver, the better off we are."

Similarly, builders oppose the proposal because they fear that the broader language it contains will make it easier for local officials to oppose rezonings without clear evidence of traffic troubles. It lowers the bar for rejections "to an arbitrary or capricious standard," said Michael Toalson, lobbyist for the powerful Home Builders Association of Virginia. "You don't have to defend it -- you can just say, 'Nope, we don't want it.' "

But the legislation would have no effect on the expanse of potential residential development that can already occur under existing zoning, also known as by-right construction. In Loudoun, there are about 35,000 lots that can still be built; in Prince William, 26,500; and in Spotsylvania County, 23,000.  [Note: That figure is about 10,000 lots in Albemarle County's rural areas]

What Virginia really needs, some local officials say, are regulations like the "adequate public facilities" ordinances used in many Maryland counties. Under those ordinances, counties can impose moratoriums on by-right construction in certain areas if they determine that there aren't enough roads, schools or other services, and they can also assess per-house "impact fees" on by-right development to pay for infrastructure.

In Virginia, most counties can only seek money from developers in the form of "proffers" for rezoning requests, not for by-right development. Stafford and Spotsylvania counties have state permission to assess impact fees on already zoned land, but with constraints. In the past three years, Stafford has assessed fees on only a few hundred of 9,000 homes built, for $1,600 to $5,300 a home.

The transportation funding package being pushed by many Republicans includes an impact fee provision, but local officials say that it is too limited to be useful, because it applies only to a fraction of land. Prince William's legislative liaison said the fees would cover only about 200 homes built in the county each year.

The crux of the problem, said Stafford Supervisor Peter J. Fields (D-George Washington), is that if counties really tried to assess fees on new exurban homes for the full costs of their impact, they would run into the tens of thousands of dollars, beyond what most would consider reasonable. But somehow, he said, the state must find a way to regulate construction on land that is already zoned.

"No other change . . . is going to make a difference in our built environment or in the cost to taxpayers, and until we do that, I am loath to congratulate ourselves for having done something for the problem," he said.

Brian Wheeler

City considers limits on future building heights

How tall will future buildings be in Downtown Charlottesville?  Would 9-story buildings create a canyon removing sunlight from the pedestrian mall?  That was the topic of a joint meeting between the City Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review on January 25, 2007.

Charlottesville Tomorrow dropped in to hear City officials review feedback from a newly formed advisory committee developing recommendations for Charlottesville’s downtown building shapes and heights.

The committee’s goals are to ultimately make recommendations that:

• Preserve the unique character of the Downtown Mall
• Preserve existing historic buildings
• Allow for reinvestment and redevelopment of Downtown Mall properties
• And to preserve adequate sun light in certain areas downtown (click on image at below to view sun angle proposal)

From this link you can download the staff report and the sun angle diagram that informed the committee's preliminary recommendations as one file.

No decisions were made and City staff asked for time to review the evening’s feedback.  The advisory committee is expected to return later in the year with another round of recommendations.

This podcast represents a test of a new story approach for Charlottesville Tomorrow.  It is a 15 minute recap of some important points in the meeting. Please send me feedback if you like the condensed approach for long work sessions of this type.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070125-CityPC-BAR.mp3

Brian Wheeler

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2006

In my weekly appearance on WINA AM 1070 with Coy Barefoot on the Charlottesville Right Now program, Coy and I will count down the top-10 growth and development stories of 2006. Call 977-1070 to get on the air and share your insights.

Charlottesville Tomorrow's Top-10 Growth and Development Stories of 2006

1. County Supervisors reach a stalemate on rural area protection strategies after agreeing unanimously in 2005 to aggressively pursue new policies as part of the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan update.
2. City/County agree on 50-year urban water supply plan which features a pipeline connecting our two major reservoirs.
3. County approves North Pointe rezoning.
4. County Supervisors unanimously endorse a potential population for Crozet of 24,000 people (current population: About 4,800).
5. The local housing pipeline grows.  Since 2000 over 8,100 homes have been approved in the County alone.  Most have not been built yet.
6. City’s vertical growth looms large—Officials question zoning allowing 9-story development.
7. County advances economic development initiatives.
8. City/County support development of Regional Transit Authority.  UVA observes from the sidelines.
9. The Slutzky factor – Supervisor David Slutzky brings new ideas and a powerful swing vote on a number of growth and development issues.
10. City/County advance major new e-Government communication initiatives [not really growth and development specific, but hugely helpful initiatives to those in the public interested in tracking these issues].

Honorable mention stories for 2006:

• Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange receives Federal earmark for almost $27 million.
• May 2006 City Council Elections

Think I left something off this list?  There were so many possibilities and I culled the list from past blog postings and the piles of files in my office. If you think something else deserves attention, please add a comment below and/or call in to WINA between 5:00 and 6:00 PM today. 

Brian Wheeler