Planning Commission learns of plan to treat Preston Avenue differently in new zoning code 

After spending several hours on two rezonings under the city’s existing development rules, the Charlottesville Planning Commission spent 80 minutes on continued deliberations about what they would recommend to City Council. Would they make a recommendation? 

Their discussion was aided by a set of materials that was not included in the original meeting packet for the meeting and was uploaded to the city’s calendar under the “Other” tab for the meeting. The 36 page document begins with a draft resolution for approval followed by a list of changes to the zoning code suggested by Commissioners during their previous deliberations.  (read the materials)

There are also several specific map changes that had previously been discussed plus at least one that had not.

For the first time, Commissioners saw language for a new “Core Neighborhoods Corridor Overlay District” created at their direction. These would allow for additional height through a special exception process but only if certain conditions are met.

“These racially diverse and affordable neighborhoods historically met their day to day needs on the adjacent Preston and Cherry Avenue corridors,” reads the statement of intent for this section. “The Core Neighborhoods Corridor Overlay District is intended to support these neighborhoods and implement the Comprehensive Plan goals of encouraging the construction and continued existence of moderately priced housing, creating and preserving affordable housing, respecting the cultural heritage of the adjacent neighborhoods, supporting public health, encouraging economic development activities that provide desirable employment, and the overall promotion of a convenient and harmonious community.” 

Commissioners first went through a series of recommendations for changes to the zoning code for Council to consider. Each one is numbered. Here are some highlights but you’ll also need a link to the current draft to make any sense of it. (view the current draft for reference)

Building heights:

• The maximum height for a building in Residential-A would be increased to 35 feet if there is one unit. The height could be as tall as 40 feet if there’s more than one unit. Previously there was no additional height for additional units. Freas said this would allow for people who want flat roofs. (#3)

• The base height for a building in Residential-C would be increased to 40 feet, up from 35 feet. The allowed height would increase to 52 feet if there were affordable units on site. (#9)
• The bonus height for affordability in Node Mixed Use 8 would be increased from 142 feet to 156 feet.  (#11)
• The bonus height for affordability in Corridor Mixed Use 8 would be increased from 142 feet to 156 feet. (#12)
• The bonus height for affordability for Node Mixed Use 10 would be increased from 170 feet to 184 feet. (#13)
• The bonus height for affordability for Downtown Mixed Use would be increased to 184 feet. Previously those limits would be up to the Board of Architectural Review. (#14)
• The bonus height for affordability in Industrial Flex 8 would be increased to 156 feet. (#15)

Uses:

• At least one residential unit would be required to enable commercial uses in residential zones. However this could be waived by a special use permit.
• Commercial uses allowed in Residential-B and Residential-C would be allowed by-right on corner lots. (#32)

• There is a whole new section regulating homestays, a big change from the original final draft which had phased them out. Now there’s a whole set of rules that were not there before. (#34)
• There was a discussion about item #49 which deals with transitions. The group Charlottesville Area Developers Roundtable (CADRE) asked for this language to be inserted: “Transitions are not required along street lot lines where the RoW between the abutting zoning designations is greater than 29 feet.” Commissioner Carl Schwarz pointed out that this could allow buildings higher than three stories on West Street. The Commission agreed to not insert this language. 
• There’s a whole new section for a Special Exception Permit that was not previously in the draft. More on that in a moment. (page 21)

Late night deliberations 

The suggested changes came from many sources. Commissioner Rory Stolzenberg sought to insert language for a church he said wanted to expand. 

“It’s in CX-3 or something and it’s next to R-B and you can do a church that is the same height and setback or whatever in R-B but because it’s CX-3, it requires a transition,” Stolzenberg said. “They’re being punished for being in that higher zone whereas if they were in R-B, they would be able to do it more flexibly.” 

Stolzenberg got suggested language from CODE Studio and the rest of the Commission agreed to make the change. 

Map changes: 

• Fifth Street Extended including the Willoughby Shopping Center would be increased from Corridor Mixed Use 5 to Corridor Mixed Use 8. This had been previously discussed. 
• The section of U.S. 29 from the U.S. 250 bypass to Greenbrier Road (almost) would be increased from Node Mixed Use 8 to Node Mixed Used 10. This had been previously discussed. 
• Commissioners saw a new map for the Venable neighborhood that would increase areas close to the University of Virginia from Residential Mixed Use 3 to Residential Mixed Use 5. Commissioners discussed whether to make a portion of Grady Avenue that still remained RX-3 to also be RX-5, but ended up keeping it as is.  
• Land owned by the University of Virginia Foundation on 10th and Wertland that has been designated for UVA’s affordable housing initiative had been proposed as Civic but will now be rezoned to Corridor Mixed Use 8. (most recent story)

One map change that had not yet been seen or discussed regarded the Core Neighborhood Overlay District. All of Preston Avenue between Rosser and McIntire would be reduced to Corridor Mixed Use 3, including the site that had been proposed for Dairy Market Phase Three. 

“We’re proposing taking Preston Avenue and Cherry Avenue and Cherry Avenue was already CX-3 but making the length of Preston Avenue also CX-3 and then applying this overlay district which would basically say you have to get a special exception permit in order to get additional  height.”

To get that height, a developer would need to provide at least two items from a list.

• A quarter of the units must be affordable at 60 percent of the area median income
• “Affordably priced commercial” space must be made available for neighborhood focused uses
• Space would be provided for educational training, job training, or other similar uses
• Provide dedicated indoor space or outdoor space for use by the local community
• Space for a community garden or urban agriculture
• Sustainable design features
• Local art installations
• “Other features or amenities that support the intent of this section and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.” 

Such special exceptions would have to be approved by City Council. A developer could still get additional height if they provided affordable units, though. 

“I think we’ve really set this up as an either/or,” Freas said. 

Commissioner Lyle Solla-Yates had extensive notes about the idea and wanted more work done in anticipation of potential legal challenges. 

“Specific, measurable things that we can fight in court,” Solla-Yates said. 

For instance, he argued that each of the amenity spaces to be provided have a minimum of 2,500 square feet. He said the local art must be done in participation with a “local art authority.” Other Commissioners weren’t so keen on the last one. 

Commissioner Rory Stolzenberg said he would like provision of units guaranteed for households lower than 60 percent of AMI. 

“I would assume that the idea is to push people to incorporate some [Low-Income Housing Tax Credit] element or PHA element for the project,” Stolzenberg said, not defining PHA.

Commissioners reached consensus to reduce the amount of affordable units needed from 25 percent to 20 percent.  We’ll come back to this point later in this segment. 

What could the Commission vote on? 

One of the major points of the entire Cville Plans Together initiative is to encourage and guarantee subsidized units where affordability hasn’t always been preserved. How will success be measured? What will the rules be? Many will be codified and explained in the Affordable Dwelling Unit Manual rather than in the code itself. (view the ADU manual)

Still, some high-level rules will be in the body of the zoning ordinance itself. Commissioner Phil d’Oronzio said suggested change #38 for the “Term of Affordability” section. 

Affordable units created for sale must be sold to households with incomes less than 60 percent of the area median income. The language reviewed would require a deed restriction giving “the City of Charlottesville or a qualifying non-profit organization a right of first refusal to purchase the home upon its first resale.” (#38)

A question that sprang from this moment was a discussion of whether the Planning Commission has to make a recommendation on the Affordable Dwelling Unit Manual itself as well as the Development Review Procedures manual. 

Sharon Pandak, the city’s outside counsel, said yes but that vote did not have to happen at the October 10 session. 

“They don’t have to be in this particular resolution tonight but I do think it would be useful for them to make recommendations to Council,” Pandak said. 

Another district?

d’Oronzio asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on an idea for a new district that he brought to Freas. At least one Commissioner thought he meant the new Core Neighborhoods Corridor Overlay District. 

“That’s tonight,” Stolzenberg said. 

“No, yet another one,” d’Oronzio said. 

“The neighborhood overlay district,” Freas said. 

Freas cleared up the matter. 

“I met with Commissioner d’Oronzio in his capacity representing the Housing Advisory Committee today and we talked about a new district… that basically mirrors the [Residential-A] district that we’ve proposed but tamps it down for these anti-displacement areas.”

Freas said this would mimic the original intent of the Sensitive Communities Areas that were proposed in the Comprehensive Plan that would restrict development rights in certain areas. Only one additional housing unit would be allowed if affordability provisions were not being sought.

“And then it will allow up to six units if all of the bonus units were affordable,” Freas said. 

However, the language was not ready for this meeting and Freas wanted to know if the Planning Commission could make a recommendation based on the concept if not the details.

Pandak asked if she had been sent this second idea of a new district and Freas said no. 

“It was a conversation today at lunch time and what we’re trying to address are the comments raised by Council at the last meeting,” Freas said. 

That meeting was the October 3 meeting by City Council where they discussed anti displacement efforts. I’ve not had a chance to write about that one yet.  Pandak weighed in.

“I think you could approve recommendations tonight with respect to the zoning ordinance and the map… and then you could say in addition, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation conceptually about the district,” Pandak said. 

Pandak said the language would have to be reviewed to see whether the details of this second district would need to formally go through the Planning Commission. 

‘We need to flesh out some of the concepts of this,” Pandak said. “Simply saying ‘we have also this new district’ in my mind is not sufficient to do anything more than take it up later.” 

“Just a reminder, we’re discussing material that none of us have reviewed or considered,” said Planning Commissioner Lyle Solla-Yates. 

“Because it doesn’t exist yet beyond a conversation that was had,” Freas said.

“I’m just saying that conceptually I would have difficulty saying let’s move forward with this with a pending district and or overlay which might be a significant portion of this,” d’Oronzio said. 

Commissioners discussed whether to wait another week to flesh out the concept further, or to send it along to Council as just the concept. d’Oronzio said he was opposed to doing so without fleshing out the details first before the Planning Commission signed off on the next steps. 

“I want a whole code and not a code full of holes, and it seems to me that we’re leaving a fairly substantial hole of a very, very important matter that has not gotten frankly the bandwidth that it needs to get,” d’Oronzio said. 

With about twenty minutes to go in the meeting, Freas said he felt there were too many items that needed to be locked down before the Planning Commission took up a recommendation.

“Based on the level of discussion that we’re at, I’m kind of inclined to say that we need to go ahead and capture all of this and bring it back to a subsequent meeting,” Freas said. 

A final meeting to take a vote will be held on October 18. That will give time for d’Oronzio’s idea to be further developed for review. 

There was a brief discussion of this late Tuesday including establishing what the boundaries for this area would be. Other changes may also be made between now and it being published in another Planning Commission agenda. 

Commissioner Habbab said he was concerned about this approach and repeated what he had previously said when this idea didn’t make it into the zoning.

“It gives me the same heartache that I had before about essentially downzoning sensitive communities,” Habbab said. “It’s a negative on their generational wealth-building.”

“Yes, but what this is informed by in part is that there is no debate in the anti-displacement about the preference,” d’Oronzio said. “The preference is way over on the side of ‘preserve my neighborhood’ over the wealth issue.” 

Commissioner Schwarz was also concerned and this will likely lead to a further discussion on October 18.  The Commission did not make a recommendation and technically continued the meeting rather than an adjournment. Sharon Pandak insisted on that language. 

To wrap-up this segment, one quick property transaction from this month. On October 6, a couple purchased 905 Page Street for $600,000. The lot and a previous structure sold for $30,000 in September 2017 to Loft Realty and Investments LLC. Another entity called Viator LLC bought the lot in February 2019 for $80,000 and built a structure. This sold for $435,000 in January 2020 and $577,000 in June 2022. 

Could it be that some know how to make money, and the rest of us just live here? At least, for now?

---

Before you go: The time to write and research of this article is covered by paid subscribers to Charlottesville Community Engagement. In fact, this particular installment comes from the October 12, 2023 edition of the program. To ensure this research can be sustained, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or contributing monthly through Patreon.