Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Dan Rosensweig named to City Planning Commission

Soccer coach and English professor Dan Rosensweig will become the newest member of the Charlottesville Planning Commission after Bill Lucy steps down this week. City Council made the appointment at its meeting on March 3, 2008, selecting from seven applicants.

Rosensweig is currently employed by the Soccer Organization of Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) and the University of Virginia’s Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies Program.

Rosensweig has been a City resident since 1991, having moved here shortly after receiving an M.A. in English at Georgetown University. Rosensweig received his Ph.D. in English from UVa in 1999. Since then, he’s written a book on urban planning called Retro Ballparks: Instant History, Baseball and the New American City. He’s also a graduate of the Neighborhood Leadership Initiative run by the City’s Department of Neighborhood Development Services.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, he said he’ll be leaving his job at SOCA in July to study the production of alternative fuels, spend more time teaching, and to begin a new book. Most importantly, he wants to free up more time to serve as a Planning Commissioner.

“The Planning Commission requires a lot of time, and one of the things I’m most interested in is being accessible,” Rosensweig said. The new commissioner said he studied several models of redevelopment while researching his first book. 

“The common thread among all of them that were successful and sustainable was that the neighborhood was involved from the very beginning,” he said. In particular, Rosensweig singled out the Dudley Street Initiative  in south Boston as an example of how neighborhood involvement can strengthen redevelopment efforts.

“It’s one of these great models that happened by accident. It is an urban enclave near Boston rife with urban America ills. Crime, suburban flight, lack of funding of schools. It got so bad the municipality let the street do their own thing,” Rosensweig said. That meant the neighborhood itself got control of land use decisions, and the idea of the “commons” permeated the discussion. Rosensweig says the effort took a while, but neighborhood involvement in creating public space was key to the success of Dudley Street.
In Charlottesville, Rosensweig points to the coming redevelopment of the Westhaven and Martha Jefferson neighborhoods as examples of where citizen involvement will be crucial to the process.

“I know what gets most people excited [about Martha Jefferson] is the opportunity to create the Holy Grail  of downtown – a grocery store – as well affordable housing for older residents,” Rosensweig said. He currently lives in the neighborhood, and says the City has a great opportunity to augment downtown.

As a Commissioner, Rosensweig says he feels a strong allegiance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and calls it “a great aspirational document.” He contributed to its creation in 2001 by participating in neighborhood meetings. At the time he was a resident of the Belmont neighborhood, but now lives near Martha Jefferson Hospital.

“If Charlottesville is able to evolve according to principles of the plan we’ll be in a better place in two decades than now,” Rosensweig said.

Rosensweig’s first official meeting will be a March 18 joint meeting of the City and Albemarle County Planning Commissions. The topic will be sewer infrastructure in both communities, and the Commissions will hear from Tom Frederick of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Gary Fern of the Albemarle County Service Authority and Lauren Hildebrand, Utilities Director for the City of Charlottesville.

Sean Tubbs

Pearson elected as new chair of Charlottesville Planning Commission

The Charlottesville Planning Commission has selected Jason Pearson to serve as its new chair, effective March 13, 2008. Michael Farruggio will remain as the new vice chair. Pearson replaces Bill Lucy, who is on sabbatical from the UVa School of Architecture.

Pearson is the Executive Director of the Green Blue Institute, and was first appointed to the Commission in October 2006.  Green Blue is a nonprofit organization that works with the private sector to promote environmentally sustainable production.

There are currently two vacancies on the Planning Commission. One is for the seat being vacated by Lucy in March. The other seat comes open in August after Commissioner Hosea Mitchell steps down.

A resident of Fifeville, Pearson became involved with local planning issues when his neighborhood faced new development challenges. He taught himself how the City’s zoning codes work, and came to the belief that the intent of the zoning ordinances was not always carried out during implementation. Pearson began to appear at Planning Commission meetings to speak his case, and applied for a position when one came open.

Pearson says he is still learning how to do his job as a Planning Commissioner, and that he had hoped to spend more time learning from the outgoing Lucy. In fact, he told Charlottesville Tomorrow he will be meeting with Lucy later in the week to get advice on the future of the Commission. He said he wants to help make the operations of the Planning Commission and Neighborhood Development staff as efficient and transparent as possible.

Pearson said he would continue to hold the pre-meeting “gatherings” where staff and commissioners have an informal discussion about a regular meeting’s agenda before going on television. Pearson even said he would encourage members of the public to attend these events.

Sean Tubbs

City Planning Commission to consider new proffer guidelines

The Charlottesville Planning Commission is considering whether or not to adopt new guidelines for how to deal with “in-kind” and cash proffers from developers seeking a rezoning. At a January 22nd work session, staff sought feedback on whether a cash proffer policy should be initiated, and if a proffer review sheet would be a useful tool. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080122-CPC-Proffers.mp3

Compared to Albemarle County, there are relatively few re-zonings in the City. Neighborhood Planner Missy Creasy said there were only five re-zonings in Charlottesville for all of 2007, and two of those were withdrawn by the applicant. However, one of those re-zonings prompted some on City Council to ask for tighter guidelines of what can be expected.

In August of last year, the Commission voted 4-2 to recommend denial of a rezoning for a new nine-story building to be built in the northeast corner of the intersection of Ridge-McIntire.  A month later, City Council approved the rezoning after the developer agreed to increase a proffered contribution to the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

“We get very limited rezonings, but the ones that do come forward require a lot of discussion,” Creasy said.
Creasy said there is a proffer policy in place, but it does not address many of the issues that have come up in recent years.

Last year, the Commission and staff developed a draft proffer review sheet to be used as a guide in accepting “in-kind” donations. This document provides an opportunity for staff to review how any proffers generated through the rezoning might address the city’s infrastructure and planning needs. Areas of interest to the city include affordable housing, environmental impacts, opportunities for green building, and potential impacts on traffic congestion. The draft sheet also clearly outlines explains to each applicant what the legal requirements of proffers are, in light of state legislation that recently expanded their potential use.

“What we’re trying to accomplish is, because we have this new-found authority  to take a lot of proffers that we couldn’t have taken before, we’re trying to give some process to it, so there is going to be a definitely reasonable relationship between the impacts and the proffers,” said Rich Harris, the City’s Deputy Attorney. 

Harris cautioned that any discussion of cash proffers may be academic, given that a bill to prohibit them in favor of impact fees is making its way through the General Assembly. 

The County arrived at a figure of $17,500 after coming up with an estimated of how much each new residential unit costs to provide services. The Commission decided that a similar calculation of the incremental impacts of new development in the City would yield a much smaller number. Commissioner Jason Pearson suggested it might be difficult to calculate the incremental impact of each rezoning, given that there aren’t as many opportunities to rezone in the City as in the County, which has more available land to develop.

Other Commissioners wanted to know more information about what an “in-kind” proffer might mean. For instance, Keller asked if a developer offered to donate funding to purchase a land trust, would that be considered a cash-proffer or an in-kind one? Harris said that would likely be considered as in-kind.

Next month, the Planning Commission will also take up new zoning districts for the Downtown Mall and the West Main and South Street corridors. New height restrictions are being considered that would limit by-right development potential, meaning developers would need to apply for a special use permit if they wanted to build extra units.Commissioner Cheri Lewis asked if the City could collect additional proffers in exchange for that permit.  That prompted a philosophical discussion in which Pearson said he felt zoning should be a way to guide development, rather than a way to simply get proffers.

The revised proffer policy will be discussed at the Planning Commission’s next meeting on February 12, 2008.

Sean Tubbs

Lucy resignation creates second vacancy on City planning commission

City Planning Commission Chairman Bill Lucy will step down effective in March as part of a sabbatical. Lucy is a professor with the University of Virginia School of Architecture who has served on the Commission since September 2004. He has been the chair since last October, when Jon Fink resigned.

“I have accomplished most of the goals I had in mind, and the City Council had in mind,
when I was appointed,” Lucy said when asked by Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Commissioner Hosea Mitchell's term will end in August, and he told Commissioners at the January 8 pre-meeting “gathering” that he will not seek another term.That means that the City will advertise for two vacant positions, and Council will select from a pool of applicants. One new commissioner will take office in April and the other will take office in the summer.

Commissioners Cheri Lewis and Bill Osteen will serve as a nominating committee to select a new chair and vice chair for the Commission and will make nominations at a later meeting of the Planning Commission.

Lucy's resignation date is effective March 13, 2008.

Sean Tubbs

Top-10 Growth & Development Stories of 2007

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

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

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

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

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

Brian Wheeler

The gathering before the crossing: Commissioners debate impartiality

At their meeting Tuesday, December 11, 2007, Charlottesville Planning Commission voted 4-3 that a second vehicular crossing of the Downtown Mall was consistent with City’s recently updated comprehensive plan.  Commissioners expressed interest in holding a work session at a future meeting to prepare a recommendation as to whether a permanent crossing should remain at 4th Street East, where it has been piloted over the past year, or moved to 5th Street East.

However, heading into the evening’s discussion, it was not clear who would be chairing the meeting or who would be voting on the matter, if anyone.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071211-CityPC.mp3

During 2007, the City Planning Commission has begun holding short meetings in advance of their regular meeting in Council chambers.  During the half hour “gathering” Tuesday, held in a small conference room down the hall from chambers and not broadcast on local TV, Chairman Bill Lucy asked his colleagues whether they even wanted to vote on the mall crossing matter.  A majority of the commission expressed support for holding the public hearing, but deferring any action.  Lucy also announced that he would not act as chair during the discussion of the mall crossing.

Discussion in the pre-meeting focused on the appropriate role of the Commission and the meaning of impartiality and recusal.  Commissioner Cheri Lewis told her colleagues she thought several of them should recuse themselves from the vote since, in her opinion, they were not acting in the spirit of the Commission’s operating guidelines which called for impartiality.  There was some discussion about whether Lucy was recusing himself from the matter or just stepping down temporarily as chair.  Rich Harris, Deputy City Attorney, advised Lucy that if he planned to vote on the matter in the future and participate in the discussion, then he was not recusing himself.  Commissioners could recuse themselves if they had a conflict of interest on a matter on the agenda.  Typically a recused member leaves the room to avoid being a participant.

A partial transcript of the pre-meeting discussion can be found at the bottom of this post and the complete audio is included above as a podcast.

Later in the evening, when the commission reconvened after a recess to begin their public hearings, Lucy announced that the rest of the meeting would be presided over by Farruggio, the Commission’s Vice Chair.  No explanation was offered to the public at this point in the meeting as to why Farruggio was made the presiding officer over all the evening’s public hearings.

When the mall crossing matter was before the Commission, Lewis raised a point of privilege and asked whether three members should be participating in the mall crossing discussion.  Lewis cited the following clause in the Commission’s operating guidelines:

“Members shall discharge their duties and responsibilities in an impartial manner, without favor or prejudice toward any person or group. When making a decision or recommendation Members shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the professional planning staff, but shall ultimately be guided by good zoning and planning practices and the public health, safety and welfare.”  Approved May 8, 2007

After some discussion by the commission, Farruggio told the public he would not be recusing himself from the matter and then he asked Pearson and Lucy about their intentions.  “I feel I can be impartial and I would like to continue to participate in this meeting,” said Pearson.  Lucy said he could also be impartial but that participation in the public hearing raised other questions for any commissioner.  “The question is whether you are going to bring your mind to the subject and think about it,” said Lucy.

Lewis again voiced her concerns about the exchange of e-mails in advance of the meeting and she suggested that such action should be avoided in the future on matters coming before the Commission.  At this point, the Commission started their public hearing on the mall crossing matter which resulted in the 4-3 vote (Farruggio, Lucy, and Mitchell against) that the crossing was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Brian Wheeler

---

Charlottesville Planning Commission Gathering, December 11, 2007, 4:00 - 4:30 PM

Participants:

Bill Lucy, Chairman
Mike Farruggio, Vice Chairman
Genevieve Keller
Cheri Lewis
Hosea Mitchell
Michael Osteen
Jason Pearson
Staff: Missy Creasy, Jim Tolbert, and Rich Harris

Lucy - “As you know this is called a gathering… we do need to have minutes as this is a public meeting.”

Lucy - “We have a very long agenda as you know… Beyond the issues of time, there are the issues of comprehension and substance and uncertainties about items, public hearing items 4 [building heights] and 5 [vehicular mall crossing] in particular.  Do we have any preliminary sense of how many members can imagine themselves in some realistic way being ready to vote on the zoning ordinance tonight [related to the downtown building heights]?”

Tolbert – “I would like to take that off the table, because I have told people I am not going to be asking you to do that… I would not be asking because of all the comment.  What I asked in the email that I sent out was that we have the hearing tonight and we take all the comment, but that because of all the volume of letters that we handed out tonight [to each commissioner] …We would have the hearing and determine whether we need a work session.”

Lucy – “What about the downtown mall?  Is there anyone who can imagine themselves voting on [the location of the vehicular crossing] at 4th or 5th, on comprehensive plan consistency, and what else, oh $950,000 for the crossing?”

Lewis – “Are you considering deferring this whole thing?”

Lucy – “Yes I am, sure.”

Lewis – “I would be, because of the fact that this has been publicly noticed, I wouldn’t pull public hearings on either of those.  Whether we vote or not is a different thing.”

Lucy – “I didn’t say cancel the public hearings.”

Lewis – “I said are you thinking of deferring and you said, ‘Yes.’  I define defer as we are knocking it off the table right now because we are discussing it at 4:15 and I think that is inappropriate when it has been publicly noticed.”

Lucy – “That wasn’t the question.  So no comments then.  O.k. let’s move on.”

[several Commissioners express their confusion]

Pearson – “As I see it, we are here gathering to get some sense of issues, which is my understanding of what Bill [Lucy] was asking. What’s the likely direction of where we are likely to end up? What I heard in the term defer was the possibility that we would have a hearing but we wouldn’t necessarily vote on these issues. And you were trying to get a sense as to how many of us concurred with that sense.  I concur with that sense, but I am going to hear a lot of comments and I am not sure I am going to be ready to vote given the number of comments we have been getting on a rolling basis all the way up to the last minute”.

Mitchell – “The 4th vs. 5th, I have no clue.  On the Comprehensive Plan consistency, I’m pretty certain.”

Rich Harris, Deputy City Attorney – “On this topic there are a few things I want to mention to everybody. Hosea [Mitchell], you just mentioned about the Comprehensive Plan consistency… I want to reiterate that it is a two tier process for this downtown mall crossing.  First decide whether it is in accordance with the comprehensive plan.  After you get that under control you can decide whether it is going to be 4th, 5th, or somewhere else.  Just want to make sure everyone is clear about that process.”

Tolbert – [Clarifies that question from City Council was whether the vehicular mall crossing should be at 4th or 5th street, not anywhere else.]

Harris – “The other public hearing about the downtown zoning… I want everyone to understand that any legal advice given to you folks, that’s legal advice between me and my client, which are you guys.  And attorney-client privilege is confidential, not for disclosure or sharing.  I want you to understand that the privileges are in your hands.  Does everyone understand that?”

Pearson – “By that you mean it is at our discretion whether we share those communications or not?”

Lewis- “ That’s correct.”

Harris – “That is correct. If you are going to do so, I would make the recommendation that we side together on that…otherwise I can’t break up the fight...” [laughter]

Lucy – “In terms of managing the overall agenda, I have two thoughts.  One is that, when we have a really long agenda, like tonight, I think we should consider as a matter of common practice the sharing of the chairing and the possibility that the Vice Chair would chair some part of the meeting.  And in particular, I want to suggest that that would be useful tonight because of this rather interesting issue that has arisen, and I would prefer not to make that a diversionary subject tonight.”

Lewis – “I think if you chose to recuse yourself Bill you should publicly announce that.  If you are exhausted and it is 2:00 in the morning and you don’t feel like you can chair towards the end of the agenda and Mike can help, then that is another matter.  For public transparency, I think on the record you should…”

Lucy – “Well I am not going to recuse myself. So we have only 10 minutes [before the 4:30 meeting starts] are there questions about...”

Farruggio – “Is that going to become a contentious issue on TV tonight if Bill does not recuse himself?”

Lewis – “I am going to ask him to recuse himself publicly, yes.”

Lucy – “Recuse myself from being chair or from…?”

Lewis – “From chairing on that matter [the downtown mall vehicular crossing], from conducting a public hearing on that matter.”

Farruggio – “Alright so I’ll take over for that matter.”

Lucy – “Well or maybe earlier, that’s the question, maybe it should be earlier.  Maybe we can chat about it on the way up.”

Farruggio – “If Bill has discussion, is that going to be alright?  Will anyone object to Bill discussing or Bill voting?”

Lewis – “From what I understand, once you pull yourself out…you can’t participate in the discussions, you can’t vote… Recusal is different than a conflict though…”

Keller – “Is recusal necessary?”

Farruggio – “I don’t know if it is necessary, but I want it to be clear whether or not that if Bill is going to recuse himself from chairing that he going to be not discussing the issues, not voting on the issues.”

Lucy – “I think it is just a useful, simple device…”

Lewis – “A chair chairs the meetings, that’s the primary purpose.  You can’t just step aside. And I don’t think recusal is an admission of whatever, it’s just a procedural courtesy to make sure that as a public body we are conducting ourselves the way we should.”

Farruggio – “Let me put this on the table, then ask you a question, because what I want to avoid is Bill recuses himself from chairing, then I take over chairing, and then we start having some discussion, or we do end up coming to a vote, and then someone objects to Bill even having discussion and or voting, and that’s what I think we should decide upon now before we go out in front of the TV camera and we are public.”

Lewis – “Well we are in a public meeting now.”

Tolbert – “Recuse is different from stepping down as chair and letting someone else chair…”

Harris – “Can I ask what the goal is here?”

Lewis – “I guess to that end, I’ll present that memo to you guys too.”

Lucy - “The goal just be to minimize contention I guess.”

Harris – “So are you still looking to vote on this matter?  Or whenever the vote does occur are you looking to vote on it?”

Lucy – “Yes.”

Harris – “So you are not planning on recusing yourself from this matter.  I wasn’t sure where that terminology came from.”

Lewis – “Well should we talk about this now instead of on TV?  We adopted, all of us but Jenny [Keller who joined commission afterwards], six months ago, operating guidelines… for this organization.  Number three on those guidelines says that we all need to be impartial.  I have just handed [Pearson & Farruggio] a memo and I have also discussed with Bill, as a courtesy real-time, and said that both of them have said by e-mail that they are opposed to this crossing.”

Lucy – “I have not said that.”

Lewis – “Bill appeared before City Council when this was voted on last time.  What I was told was that Bill’s comments were opposed to the vehicular crossing.  Bill says that that is not true.  Bill was quoted in The Hook as being opposed, but Bill says that those were opinions when this was last considered and he was on the commission.  My concern is the guidelines say that we need to be impartial.  It is a tough call, because we all come here with our biases, our talents, our subject matter preferences…We don’t come here as clean slates, I realize that.  But I have never in my six years on the commission seen members express publicly their personal preference about the outcome of a vote that was coming before us at a public hearing.  This is not a site plan.  This is not something where we don’t have a public hearing.  We have a lot of people interested on both sides and this is a public matter.  And I think that if it is not a fifty-fifty chance that the members who have expressed a public opinion being opposed to this crossing… if there’s not a fifty-fifty chance that you can walk in there and have your minds changed by something that is said tonight then you should recuse yourself because you are partial and you have expressed your partiality publicly.”

Pearson – “Can I respond to that?  First of all I can say that I would be entering this meeting with a fifty-fifty chance of voting either way on either of the issues.  I am saying that partly because the e-mails you are referencing I do remember now… what I do remember expressing is that Mike [Farruggio] forwarded a letter around that expressed some strong opinions to Council and that he said that ‘This doesn’t present all the information. I am not sure I have all the information, but based on this letter it sure sounds like we are making a mistake and this sure sounds like it requires discussion…’ I read the letter he had forwarded and said, ‘Based on this letter, I too don’t have all the information…this sure sounds like from this letter we are making a mistake.’  That I agree with the Interpretation of this letter.”

Lewis – “You are impeaching Council’s decision and that’s not what I see as our job here.  Council has delegated to us two discreet questions that are very complex and that ultimately go to the ultimate question of whether there should be a crossing or not, but the issue of whether there should be a crossing or not is not before us.  Mike and I spoke about this.  I would hope you could have a clear mind, erase it, go in there and listen to what every single person has to say with an open mind.  But if you have already expressed an opinion that Council made a mistake in that vote, [then] I don’t know how you can [give consideration] to those two sub-topics impartially.  I have never seen Planning Commissioners express a personal preference before a public hearing vote.  I find it wrong.  Let’s just repeal the operating guidelines.  We reviewed and discussed them at length.  It said we have a duty to be impartial.  There [was] no wiggle room.”

Pearson – “Cheri… I must say I don’t see the partiality there…”

Lucy – “Ladies and gentleman, it’s 4:27 and we need to go to the chambers.”

Farruggio – “I have a question to ask first before we can go to chambers…Is there a test, as Cheri is suggesting, for impartiality? I can say right now I have come into a meeting feeling like I [feel] right now having some of the information and then came out with a different decision at the end.”

Harris - “That’s the idea behind a public meeting...”

Lewis – “But Mike if you have sent a public letter all around, how are members of the public going to perceive that?”

Farruggio – “I didn’t send it all around, I sent it to the Planning Commission and City Council.”

Lewis – “But you know that’s a public document because of the way you have distributed it.”

Farruggio – “I would agree it is a public document but I didn’t send it to the newspaper...”

Lewis – “This issue is whether the public that signs up to speak tonight will believe that Mike Farruggio, Bill Lucy and Jason Pearson can possible listen to him [or her] with an open mind.”

Harris – “The decision to be made is whether or not a mall crossing will go along with the comprehensive plan.  I didn’t even know about these comments that are out there, but if Bill or any of you can make that decision rationally, does this comply with the comprehensive plan, then I don’t see the issue.”

Lewis – “We are not a political body.  We were given an assignment, it’s a hard one, it’s very narrow to the ultimate question that Council has already decided.  It’s really hard.”

Pearson – “We are not a political body, so the idea of public perception swaying whether or not a member who is publicly stating… I am stating, ‘I can make an impartial decision.  Mike is stating he can make an impartial decision. To weigh whether the public will perceive or impartiality as impartial, that is a political consideration...”

[Commissioners leave the room]

Commission recommends denial for McCauley Crossing

The Albemarle County Planning Commission split 3-3 on a recommendation to approve the McCauley Crossing development, a proposed rezoning for property off Proffit Road.  In the case of a tie, the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors is for denial.  McCauley Crossing would feature 30 townhouses in an undeveloped area between Forest Lakes and the proposed North Pointe Development. The property is currently zoned R-1, which would allow only one housing unit per acre. 

The applicant made many changes to the plan since the last work session on the rezoning. First, the name has changed from Mermac Crossing. Next, four more units have been added after the Commission asked for more density in the area. The Draft Places 29 Framework shows the area as being urban residential. The applicant also agreed to include the road through the complex as the first component of a network of public roads to support the area. They also agreed to designate five of the units as affordable under the County's evolving proffer policy.

That affordable housing component triggered the concerns of two men from Lighthouse Worship Center, which borders the property. The Pastor and the Church Secretary both appeared before the Commission to express their concern that the affordable housing units would attract sexual predators to the area, threatening the children in their daycare.

Commissioner Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) said while he thought the plan was a decent one, he could not support any rezoning at this time because the County has not acted on rural ordinances. Strucko has not approved of a rezoning for several meetings.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) said she could not support the rezoning due to a lack of information about whether the Albemarle County Service Authority can support the additional density.

The additional no vote was from Duane Zobrist (White Hall), who felt that putting a condominium complex in the midst of churches was perhaps inappropriate.

Voting to approve were Jon Cannon (Rio), Pete Craddock (Scottsville) and Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett). Edgerton said that the plan had improved significantly, and he thought its increased density met with the County's expectations for the growth areas. Commissioner Cal Morris was absent, and motions fail in the case of a tie.

The proposal will go before the Board of Supervisors on January 16, 2008.

Sean Tubbs

City Planning Commission defers decision on location of mall street crossing

When the Charlottesville Planning Commission gathered for their monthly meeting  on November 13, 2007, they expected to have a discussion regarding the proposed Downtown Mall Crossing in terms of whether or not it should stay at Fourth Street or move one block east to Fifth Street.  As far as they were concerned, City Council had voted in June to make the Mall Crossing permanent, so the Planning Commission’s dialogue only needed to focus on its exact location.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071116-MallCrossing.mp3

Upon reaching that agenda item, however, Charlottesville’s Director of Neighborhood Services Jim Tolbert informed the Commission that City staff preferred that the Planning Commission not discuss the topic after all.  He came before the Commission, not to give his scheduled report on the matter, but to instead declare that there was a great deal of confusion about what was being discussed.  According to Tolbert, City staffers had come to the conclusion that, in their last discussion, Council did not vote but rather deferred the issue to the Planning Commission. 

The City Councilors themselves disagree, and all believe that they did cast votes with the ultimate decision to maintain an East End Mall Crossing.  Despite the assurance from the voting body that “they did in fact vote and are wondering why we are having this discussion,” Mr. Tolbert remained adamant that the agenda item be deferred until after he could “get straight with exactly what Council did with their previous discussion.”  He waved off the timeliness of the matter with a nod towards the currently functioning Fourth Street crossing, and also told the Planning Commission that he intended to have engineers present at the next Mall crossing discussion.

Planning Commission Chair Bill Lucy’s response was that “the analysis of the 4th and 5th street options… really would warrant a work session,” so he would respect the request to delay the Mall Crossing item.  Furthermore, Lucy also brought up another new issue with the mention of ultimately adding more than one mall crossing: “Some of the arguments that have been made for a crossing would apply equally, and in fact more so, to two, or three, or four, or five more crossings.  I do think it really would be inappropriate for us not to at some time confront those additional issues.” 

Kendall Singleton

City accepting applications for Planning Commission seat

The City of Charlottesville has extended the deadline for applications for a seat on the City Planning Commission to Monday, October 1, 2007.  Applications may be completed on the City’s website, or you may call Jeanne Cox, the Clerk of City Council, at 970-3113 or e-mail at coxj@charlottesville.org.  Applicants must be residents of the City of Charlottesville.

Here are a few additional details from the City's website:

• Meetings: 2nd Tuesday of every month at 6:30 p.m.
• Membership: 7 members (must be City residents, qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and development, provided that at least half the members be property owners)
• Term: 4 years
• Purpose: Advises Council on promoting orderly development of community. Advises in the development of comprehensive plan, including land use, transportation, community facilities and service, and designation of renewal and other treatment areas. It advises on zoning, subdivision, capital programming and other planning activities.

Brian Wheeler

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.