After several hours of discussion, Charlottesville’s Planning Commission recommended City Council deny a controversial rezoning proposal that would build up to 72 new apartments and a daycare center in the Locust Grove neighborhood. During a September 13 joint meeting, the commission cited issues with the project’s affordable units and infrastructure. However, commissioners and councilors expressed general support for the high-density development—which has received criticism from dozens of neighbors—and remained open to approving a revised proposal in the near future.
The proposal asks to rezone two empty lots next to Mount View Baptist Church on St. Clair Avenue from two-family residential to planned unit development, allowing the developers, led by Craig Builders, to build a mixture of efficiency, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units that would appear as a series of linked townhomes. The development would feature a central greenspace and a multi-use path within the Otter Street right-of-way that would be constructed to connect Landonia Circle and St. Clair Avenue. The church has also expressed interest in opening a daycare, which the PUD zoning would permit.
Seven of the new units would be set aside as affordable housing. While four would be reserved for households making less than 65 percent of the area median income, three would be for households making less than 80 percent—however, an affordable unit could become available to higher earners if it remains vacant for longer than 90 days, and all affordable units would convert to market rate after 10 years, per the current proposal.
Planning commissioners criticized the project’s short affordability period, and pushed for it to accept housing vouchers. Councilor Michael Payne urged the developers to align with the city’s draft inclusionary zoning policy and require new developments (with 10 or more units) to set aside at least 10 percent of units as affordable housing for households making 60 percent or less of the AMI—for at least 99 years.
The developers are open to dropping the 90-day vacancy rule, and now want to make all the affordable units up to 80 percent AMI, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s payment standard, said engineer Justin Shimp, who represented the developers. “If someone has a voucher, they qualify for that standard.”
Shimp argued that the seven units could remain affordable after 10 years—Wickham Pond, a similar development in Crozet, still has affordable units today, five years after its affordability period ended.
But “I can’t think of a project that’s got 30-year, 99-year [affordability] without some kind of subsidy,” said Shimp. “This [development] is like a $200,000 basically donation to affordable housing, when you make these sort of reduced-rent restrictions.”
Commissioners expressed additional concerns about the development’s impact on traffic, as well as pedestrian and transit connectivity in the surrounding neighborhood, particularly incomplete and inadequate sidewalks. Shimp replied that there are five CAT bus stops within a five-minute walk from the proposed site, and the developers are “open and willing to fill in those two missing pieces of sidewalk” on River Vista Avenue.
Ahead of last week’s meeting, Neighborhood Development Services staff also recommended denying the rezoning request, arguing that the development’s infrastructure and affordability issues do not comply with the city’s new comprehensive plan.
“Staff is concerned that while the proposed development includes multiple smaller buildings, these buildings are not ‘house‐sized’ in relation to the surrounding neighborhood,” which largely consists of single-family homes, reads the staff report, “[and] that no improvements to the existing River Vista Avenue sidewalk network are proposed. The existing network on the southern side of River Vista Avenue … includes multiple gaps where no sidewalk exists. Staff is also concerned that no pedestrian connection through Landonia Circle to Long Street (Route 250 Bypass) is provided.”
During public comment, multiple neighborhood residents spoke out against the development, echoing concerns brought up by commissioners and city staff. Elizabeth Hand claimed the high number of units was not “consistent” with the neighborhood, while Elizabeth Alcorn pointed to the area’s traffic problems.
“Two weeks ago one of my neighbors [had] her car totaled while it was parked on Calhoun Street because of the narrow width of the street and the heavy traffic—until this problem is fixed, there should be no development going on in the neighborhood,” said Alcorn.
Some neighbors, though, urged the city to approve the high-density development. Former city councilor Kristin Szakos reflected on the many proposals for denser housing she saw denied “because they were not perfect.”
“The results of those years of denials and of zoning that encouraged large houses on individual lots is that our city is experiencing a crisis,” said Szakos. “This project is not perfect, but it offers what I hope will be one of many responses to that crisis—we need housing.”
“Our neighborhood looking ahead is never going to become walkable until we increase the density to support non-residential mixed uses. Lack of density is what’s holding back walkability in our neighborhood,” added Josh Krahn.
Over the past few months, several dozen other neighborhood residents have sent the commission emails urging it to deny the rezoning request, criticizing the project’s high density, increased traffic, parking needs, and other concerns. “THERE WILL BE A DISRUPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY AND VALUES … THIS INCREASE IN POPULATION DENSITY IS A SERIOUS ASSAULT ON THE NEEDS OF EXISTING RESIDENTS,” reads one email included in last week’s meeting packet. Around a dozen neighbors sent messages in support of the project, praising it for bringing more diverse housing options to Locust Grove.
Councilor Juandiego Wade expressed concerns about the affordable units, while Councilor Brian Pinkston encouraged the developers to address traffic issues—but felt the proposal was “in general, a good project in a good place.”
“This is the kind of density of a project that our zoning rewrite encourages … so I want to figure out how we can get to yes,” said Payne. “I just don’t think the affordability proffers are quite there yet.”
The developers will work with city staff over the next few weeks to improve their proposal, before it goes before City Council for a vote next month.