LYNN SEARS: Good evening, and welcome to a special program
on Jefferson Cable Television, a press
conference between members of the Charlottesville Press Corps
and members of the Charlottesville Planning
Commission.
With us here tonight on Jefferson Cable
are members of the planning commission, Sandy Lambert,
Virginia Schatz--
who is the Chairwoman of the Planning Commission, Jerry
Mashaw, and Leroy Bruton and from the Press Corps,
we have Alan Cooper of the Charlottesville Bureau
of The Richmond Times Dispatch, Neal
Osborne from the Charlottesville Daily Progress.
And before I open the floor to you gentlemen,
I think we should have a basic question answered.
Explain the public hearings you're going to have this week.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: We're going to have three public hearings
on the zoning ordinance.
They will take place on Tuesday night,
Wednesday night, and Thursday night of this week--
the 23rd, the 24th, and the 25th.
We will have them separated into various categories.
The first night, we will look at residential zones
and manufacturing zones, and, of course, the map.
We will discuss that every night of our public hearings.
The second night, we will concentrate mainly
on business zones with other items
such as the architectural design control
district, the off-street parking ordinance being,
I think, the most important ones on that particular night.
The third night, we will concentrate on the floodplain
ordinance, the sign ordinance, and
various administrative ordinances- how you administer
the zoning ordinance, in other words,
and also, of course, the map.
We are hopeful that we will get a good turnout from citizens
on each of these nights.
We will ask them to sign up as they
come in the door for the various topics that they will speak on,
so that we can have everyone you have a fair chance.
And then we're hoping to be able to throw it open
if we have time after everybody has
had their chance at least once.
LYNN SEARS: Before opening it to the press,
I'd like to mention that if anybody listening has
a question, call 296-6151, and we can put you on the air.
OK, gentlemen.
NEAL OSBORNE: Let's start with the floodplain issue.
As I understand it, if the ordinance
is passed in its present form, we will, as a city,
qualify for federal flood insurance.
And, I think, Ginny, you told me 75 homes would
receive a nonconforming label--
approximately 75 homes in the three floodplain areas.
Now what kind of financial impact
is that going to have on the person who
owns a home close to the Rivanna River
and is going to receive this nonconforming label?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: We can't answer that question very definitely
at the present time.
We talked to our city tax assessor,
and he felt that most of the homes,
there would be very little impact.
But his assessments are based on fair market value,
and that's what he has to base his assessments on.
And he has to see what the market does with these homes,
basically.
NEAL OSBORNE: Aside from the market value,
though-- let's say that home 60% destroyed by fire.
As I understand-- again, you can correct me--
the owner will have to rebuild the house
but will have to rebuild it in compliance with requirements
such as being one foot above the floodplain level.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Yes, the ground floor or the living areas
would have to be rebuilt one foot above the level
of the floodplain.
The basement could be within the floodplain,
but it would have to have certain flood-proofing
requirements satisfied.
NEAL OSBORNE: But he gets insurance on the 60% destroyed,
but he has to rebuild the other 40%
to comply with the requirements.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: This is the major drawback.
And this is basically why when we
did our work on the floodplain ordinance two years ago,
we did not require the nonconforming stigma.
Now I think the situation has changed,
and I hope that people understand why it has changed.
Basically, the federal government
will not support any programs of any sort in the floodplains.
We do not have our ordinance conformed
to their requirements.
The city could not have a bridge repaired
if it were in the floodplain.
People who wanted to sell their homes in the floodplain
would not be able to get federally-supported mortgages
on their homes.
There would be no disaster relief
for any flooding in the city.
These are the types of penalties that would be imposed.
And so therefore, the planning commission
thought we had better, at this point,
take another good, hard look at the floodplain ordinance
and see whether, at this time, it's in the city's interests
to make it conform.
LEROY BRUTON: I might add, Neal, that on the flood insurance,
that is the same way as if you had a fire.
If the flood destroyed the building by as much as 60%,
the flood insurance would only cover the 60% loss,
and the balance of the 40% would have
to be sustained by the homeowner.
I think the crux of this floodplain issue
is whether the benefit to the city of Charlottesville
for losses they may sustain in a flood, such as rebuilding
bridges, is to be borne solely by these people who
live in the floodplain or whether the city should,
perhaps, make some sort of-- if they elect
to adopt a floodplain ordinance in conformity
with the National Flood Insurance Act,
whether they should arrange to have some sort of program
for taking care of this loss that is not covered
by insurance that is sustained as a result of the ordinance
that we pass.
ALAN COOPER: It seems to me that the real problem
is going to come with your trunk sewer lines.
If, of course, a good percentage might well be built. When do
you have to have this approved?
LEROY BRUTON: 1975, June the 1st, I believe.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: The cutoff date is June 30, 1975.
ALAN COOPER: But it seems to me that the real problem
is going to be getting the 80% or 85%
federal buck on the North Creek Interceptor,
for example, that big Rivanna Interceptor--
I understand that you might not be eligible for that.
Is that right?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: That's quite possible.
ALAN COOPER: And that runs into millions of dollars.
LEROY BRUTON: If it floods within the floodplain,
it's my understanding that you wouldn't be eligible for--
ALAN COOPER: But trunk sewers are always in the floodplain.
[CHUCKLES]
NEAL OSBORNE: Was the commission unanimous
on this that for the greater benefit of the entire city,
these persons should take this extra risk on their homes?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: We haven't, basically, made
the decision yet.
We are going to public hearing with the ordinance
in a certain forum.
And now we're going to try to hear from the people,
and then the decision will be made
whether to recommend a city council--
NEAL OSBORNE: I'm sure it'll [INAUDIBLE]
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: --that it go way or the other,
then it's basically cities council's decision.
JERRY MASHAW: I think, perhaps, it should also be pointed out
that there is additional flood insurance that's available
once we conform to the federal statute,
so that property owners who currently have only--
what is it-- $15,000 or $17,500 will now qualify
for $35,000 of flood insurance.
LYNN SEARS: What would you say the most controversial thing
about the new zoning ordinance is,
the thing that the public's going to, perhaps, object
to the most?
SANDY LAMBERT: The floodplain might turn out
to be one of them, very easily.
LYNN SEARS: How about the sign ordinance?
SANDY LAMBERT: Yeah, the sign ordinance--
if you go by the reactions of the county and the publicity
and news that that's getting, will probably be one.
Possibly our R-3 development will
draw a lot of conversation.
I'm not sure it'll be controversial.
LYNN SEARS: What R-3 development?
SANDY LAMBERT: The R-3 zoning as is
proposed in the revised ordinance
lowers the density now permitted.
It's now 43 and 1/2 units per acre.
And the new ordinance recognizes the norm more slightly above
and allows 21 units per acre.
But under special permit, it will allow up to 43 and 1/2
or even up to 86 units.
NEAL OSBORNE: Have you any plans for compensation for people
who have to take down their signs or their billboards?
It's becoming an issue in the county already.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: They were allowing them
a five-year period of grace on most
of the most expensive signs.
Actually, they were trying to allow them time
so that they can realize the amount of money
that they've put into them.
We say that a sign that costs $300 must be down within one
year.
And beyond that, the amounts go up
until, by the end of five years, they're
all supposed to come down if our ordinance passes.
ALAN COOPER: One thing that you were
particularly happy about that we were was the PUD--
the Planned Unit Development [INAUDIBLE]----
developing 14 units per acre on a 3-acre tract.
How many 3-acre tracts are there left in the city?
And how many of them can you develop on?
[LAUGHS]
LEROY BRUTON: I think that we'll find that PUD
will be used some in the city.
I think that there are some.
There are not the abundance of the, certainly,
that they are in the county.
But even the better reason for us having a PUD zone
in the city because it will allow
more flexibility for the acreage that is available.
And I think you would find that there are quite
a few 3-acre tracts, and when you talk in terms of numbers,
it would take quite a few years to absorb those.
It's not as many as, again, as the county.
But the county's PUD is a minimum 100 acres, as you know.
And so three acres is quite a small site
for a PUD, which should allow a lot of flexibility
for planning that you couldn't have in the past
as far as being restricted to sideline requirements, and lot
frontages, and that sort of thing.
LYNN SEARS: How seriously is the scarcity of water and sewer
hookups going to affect development in the city?
SANDY LAMBERT: Who wants to take a shot at that?
LEROY BRUTON: Everybody's probably
going to want to answer that one.
[LAUGHTER] The most recent reports that I have on sewer
is that we're on the road to recovery in the sewer problem.
We're not out of the woods by any manner of means,
but the improvements to the Moore's Creek and Meadows Creek
plants are underway and the improvements
projected for 1978, which will give us
capacity that will leave us unlimited capacity, virtually.
And very recently, I understand, that the Rivannas Service
Authority through chemical treatment
has been able to actually reduce the sewage, the BOD
content, or the biological content being discharged
into the streams to a level actually below the licensing
limits.
So temporarily, at least, we're out of the woods.
Now this will have to be a sustained program,
and it'll have to go on for longer than it has.
I understand it's only--
this has only been achieved in the last two to three weeks.
But it appears that we may be on the road to recovery
and have some good things to look forward
to the sewage area.
LYNN SEARS: We look forward to your telephone calls
at 296-6151.
The zoning ordinance affects all our lives.
NEAL OSBORNE: One thing I was trying to figure out
as I plodded my way through part of the ordinance-- not all
of it, I must admit- was how far the new administrative parts
of the ordinance would allow you to speed up
your handling of routine business
and allow yourselves more time to look at the broader
issues of planning the city.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Sandy, do you want to tackle that one?
SANDY LAMBERT: Well, I can tackle it in part.
We have in the site plan a portion of the ordinance-- site
plan is part of the ordinance now,
but in the revised ordinance, more and more
of the site plan procedures will be handled by the city staff.
And the planning commission will review only those sites
which it feels are of extreme importance
or the petitioner particularly the cares
for the planning commission to hear
or the staff feels the planning commission should hear.
So this isn't one effort along the lines
of what you're talking about, Neal, to speed up the processes
to help people come get through the red tape at City Hall.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think the most helpful thing will
be to have the zoning ordinance written on city council's
desk instead of hours.
Then we can get onto the more interesting aspects of planning
that would appeal, I think, more to the general populace too.
ALAN COOPER: Have you found if there's any development waiting
or, perhaps, even, on the other hand,
being held up awaiting the new zoning ordinance?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Leroy, can you answer that one?
My impression is yes.
What's yours?
LEROY BRUTON: Yeah, I believe there are some things waiting
in the background.
I think earlier when we were more
optimistic about our schedule on the zoning ordinance
that we probably induced some people who petitioned
for rezoning to wait for the new zoning ordinance with the hope
that we would have an ordinance at that time that would allow
us to essentially do what they were petitioning the city
to do, which we could not allow them
to do under the old ordinance.
Now I think we saw the fallacy in that
because we changed our ordinance from time to time.
And sometimes this was not a true statement
as it turned out later.
We thought it was at the time, of course.
And so we kept holding out that as an opportunity
as we got further down the road.
But I believe there are some developments awaiting
the passage of this ordinance that
will be viable under the ordinance that
haven't been previously.
ALAN COOPER: Are you talking about taking advantage
of the R-3 especially?
LEROY BRUTON: I think in the R-3, yes, especially--
the PUD townhouse ordinance--
ALAN COOPER: Where do you that that would go?
LEROY BRUTON: R-2 in the single-family duplexes,
triplexes, and quadplexes.
ALAN COOPER: I know that right now that quadplex looks
very attractive to, seems like, kind of one developer
especially has been putting up duplexes
all over town because he can sneak in the backdoor on that
with the sewage situation, which allows one and two house
units here the here but doesn't allow a sizable development.
I think that's one thing that might seem a little unfair.
A man can throw up 20 units scattered around,
but he can't build a 20-unit complex.
I know this developer's put up at least that many duplex
units.
LEROY BRUTON: Around?
And what are you saying there, Alan?
I'm--
ALAN COOPER: I'm not sure how fair that is.
I'm saying that it might be--
where you up a duplex, you might be
able to put up a quadplex now.
LEROY BRUTON: Right.
ALAN COOPER: And, you know, that's--
you get two or three of those together, that's pretty good
sized development that probably wouldn't
be allowed with the sewage situation catching development.
LEROY BRUTON: You're saying it wasn't fair to him
to have to build duplexes when, now, he could possibly build--
ALAN COOPER: I'm saying it's not fair for some people who
own a sizable hunk of property in the city that'd
like develop it--
put maybe 20 units up.
And this man has put up 20 units,
but he's put it on a 1/4 acre here and a 1/4 acre there.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: This is, I think, definitely unfair.
And I hope that the sewage situation will become easier
so that we don't have to face things like that.
LEROY BRUTON: Well, basically, I think
the situation has been that the city has
been under a voluntary moratorium
more or less on sewer, and they've
more-or-less had to permit areas that had improved lots
with sidewalks and on streets even though they were isolated
sites to go ahead rather than allowing any bulk development
on a large number of acreage.
And nothing can be fair about a moratorium of any sort.
And I think they've been trying to control it
very nicely through this voluntary effort
on a short-range basis trying to solve the problems.
Had we been under a moratorium, a strict moratorium,
then all land let's say, that was R-3,
perhaps, the city will lose part of its tax base on that land
because that land wouldn't have a market value for R-3 land,
of course, if you could not get apartments on it.
And you could not build apartments
if you couldn't get sewer.
So we've been under a great deal of pressure,
the city has, I think.
And I think they've done very nicely keeping
some semblance of balance.
And, of course, in any sort of trade offs like that,
not every single instance is fair.
But I think they've done a pretty good job.
LYNN SEARS: We have our first phone call
of the evening at 296-6151.
Good evening, you're on Jefferson Cable.
Oh, OK.
Thank you very much.
Apparently having trouble with the phone tonight.
This gentleman wants to know what
the ordinance will do to phase out nonconforming uses.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Jerry, do you want to tackle that?
JERRY MASHAW: I take it he means nonconforming uses
other than sign, because we previously
mentioned that the sign ordinance allows a phase out
within five years.
There is nothing in the ordinance concerning
the phasing out of nonconforming uses
other than by the normal attrition that
would affect them.
Nonconforming use, once the use changes or lapses,
can't be reconstructed.
And that occurs from time to time as buildings age
and become dilapidated or you have a fire or something.
Other than that, the ordinance does not
attempt to phase out nonconforming structures.
LYNN SEARS: Does that have anything
to do with spot zoning in a way?
JERRY MASHAW: Well, to a certain extent
you could deal with a nonconforming use problem
by making everything a conforming use.
You could go around and spot zone properties
so that everybody's conforming.
That, of course, doesn't make much sense
in terms of land-use planning.
These buildings are nonconforming because, usually,
because they were built prior to the time
that zoning came into effect, or perhaps they're
an annexed area, or something of that nature.
And the other way to deal with the nonconforming use
that we think is reasonable is simply
to let the uses lapse through passage of time.
If someone has a substantial and expensive structure that
happens to be nonconforming that's in good repair
and is being used, it gets a little heavy-handed
to suggest to him that, 10 years from now, you've
got to tear that building down.
NEAL OSBORNE: One thing that's bothering me in your ordinance,
you have a lot of clauses encouraging high-density use,
particularly in the downtown area along West Main
and along East Main as well.
And you're trying to attract high-density residential
development.
And you're asking the developer of such high rises
to provide parking and recreational facilities--
laundries, play areas for children, and so on.
So the unit itself will be self-contained
and will be an attractive unit.
But let's say that those clauses really
do attract a whole lot of high-density development
downtown.
Do you think that all those people coming down there
are liable to--
and other parts of the city--
liable to put pressure on services apparently divorced
from these self-contained developments?
I'm talking about roads, and schools, and sewers,
and all the other services that the city provides.
Do you think that you may be creating nice residential units
that will be in a city that cannot cope with this increased
population?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think what we've
done with the high-density residential is
to try to put it in the places where the services they would
need are already available.
The downtown area has your stores.
You will have the new supermarket in the Vinegar Hill
area.
Hopefully, these people will not need
to use a car as much as other people to get to the services
that they require.
I think this is true all up and down Main Street.
And this is the primary location where
these high-density residential will be.
Hopefully in the future, we will have some sort of mass transit
up and down Main Street.
They will be able to use that to get to the places
they can't walk to.
But this is the main reason we have concentrated
this high-density residential in these areas,
because the people would have the services there.
Of course, any time you add that many people,
you're going to have some additional people in schools.
But there are so many students longing for a place
to live close to school.
They do not put the pressures on the Charlottesville school
system that the families would, for example.
And I would imagine a number of people
living in these apartments might be students.
SANDY LAMBERT: When you think about it,
the city is spending a great deal of time, money, and effort
to create things like better transportation in terms
of streets with Preston Avenue and the 5th Street connection,
which will eventually go to 29 North.
So before too long, the downtown area
will be possibly even easier to get to than some
of the other commercial areas within the city.
And I think we all know that the city seems
to get a little bit lonely and desolate after 9:00 o'clock
at night, if not before.
ALAN COOPER: Try 5:00.
[LAUGHTER]
SANDY LAMBERT: And planners are recognizing
that this is happening.
And they're trying to reverse the trend, which has left us
with some empty school buildings and some empty places
that we could be using if they're not too outdated.
Reverse that trend, and put some people back
in the city at night so that it once again will come to life.
NEAL OSBORNE: Do you see it as possibly changing
the character of the city?
Charlottesville has grown from a small town
with single-family residences predominating
into a town with more and more apartments
and high-density living, and now you're
encouraging these trends.
Is this something you're trying to do consciously?
Or are you trying to--
what are you trying to do to preserve the R-1, the older
parts of the city?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think what we're
trying to do is keep this kind of development
out of the R-1 and R-2 development
and put it into the zones where it can be most easily absorbed.
I think a few people will argue that we
don't need more people living downtown
to make it a living city.
And this is the idea of this high-density residential,
is to put the people where they can make it a living city
and keep them out of the outlying quiet residential
areas.
I don't think that we'll be overwhelmed
with high-density residential developments.
There's also a requirement in that
that it not have an adverse affect on the surrounding
areas.
I think this could easily be construed to mean not too
many, in some senses.
In other words, you get one, that's fine.
You get two right next to each other,
that might not be so fine.
They all have to be applied for by special permit.
And if people feel they're getting too many of them,
they can come down and tell us that.
JERRY MASHAW: I think we might point out, too,
one difference between protecting residential areas
and encouraging development in the downtown area.
It's sort of the difference between the Federal Reserve
Board taking a tight-money policy
and taking a loose-money policy.
In the residential areas, you can restrict,
and you can protect.
And a zoning ordinance can do that reasonably effectively.
On the other hand, when we're providing vehicles
for investment in the downtown area,
those won't work unless private investment goes in there
and makes it work.
We're pushing on the string there,
and in order for the string to stay straight,
somebody's going to be pulling on the other end of it.
And if they're not, it's just going
to bend and fall on the floor.
ALAN COOPER: You spoke of housing for students.
I know Mr. [INAUDIBLE] was of the opinion
that certain areas around university,
especially like the University Circle area, which are,
I think, still maintain their R-1 zoning in the zoning map.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Yes.
ALAN COOPER: The pressure on that
is going to be too much for that area.
Or pressure for higher-density housing pursuits
may be too much for that area.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect
you can protect that area?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: We-- at least, my opinion
is that I want to try to protect any area like that where
the people who live there are sincerely
interested in preserving it for their own use
and where they seem to be succeeding.
There will always be pressure on these good R-1
areas around the university.
And my own feeling is that I want
to try to give them some of the ammunition they
need to try to save them.
There's Gildersleeve Wood.
There's the University Circle area.
There's the good R-2 areas up along Stadium Road.
There's always going to be pressure on them.
But if the people who live there are really concerned
and watch that people around them
don't break the law by having student apartments
when they shouldn't, I think the city will back them up.
But it's up to the people who live there to maintain them,
I think.
NEAL OSBORNE: One question I've been dying to ask
is how long do zoning ordinances last?
When do we go through this again?
[LAUGHTER]
LEROY BRUTON: At least the time or present zoning commission.
NEAL OSBORNE: When was the last one drawn up?
SANDY LAMBERT: It was written in 1958 and some parts of it
in '59, I believe.
And that was after about two years of effort
in drafting it, which somewhat parallels
the course of the present ordinance, which may have taken
a little bit longer to draft because
of a change in personnel in the city planning department.
And hopefully, it'll be much longer before the next one gets
written.
[LAUGHTER]
LYNN SEARS: I think we've been asking
some kind of complex questions about the zoning ordinance
without really getting down to how
it's different from the old ordinance and how it's better.
And some people might not know that who are are listening.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Well, I'll start off.
The two key words, I think, in the whole new zoning ordinance
are flexibility and control.
We're trying to get to the point where
we can allow the developer to do the things that he wants to
and that we feel would be a benefit to the city
without necessarily giving him license to go in and spoil what
has been a quiet residential area around him.
In other words, we have put things
into the zoning ordinance which would require
greater buffering, greater side yards, lower
height next to lower-density residential areas.
This would be for both businesses and apartments
that went in.
NEAL OSBORNE: Ginny, what have you specified
in the way of buffering?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: We have specified a side yard
requirement of 20 feet in the B-1 and B-2 districts
and also, I think, some sort of visual buffering
in the way of a dense, opaque fence or hedge
to go in there between a residential use
and a business use and a similar buffering
around parking lots and apartment development.
NEAL OSBORNE: So we can expect to see a lot more trees
around the city?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: [LAUGHS] I would hope so.
NEAL OSBORNE: Dense, high fences and shrubbery?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Well I think we can do it
in a way that will not be a detriment but an asset.
NEAL OSBORNE: Do you think that in commercial developments
that are already abutting residential developments,
that you can increase the amount of buffering
that there is between them?
Is there anything in the ordinance to--
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Only if they want to come in
with a new development.
No, we can't go back and say to a business it's already there,
you put a fence in or a hedge in here.
No, we can't do that.
LYNN SEARS: The county owns the land
around the Rivanna Reservoir.
The city owns the Rivanna Reservoir.
How, in the zoning ordinance, is this controlled?
JERRY MASHAW: Not at all.
LYNN SEARS: Not at all?
[LAUGHTER]
JERRY MASHAW: We don't think anybody's
going to develop the Rivanna Reservoir itself
and, therefore, have not zoned it.
[LAUGHTER] The county land around it,
we have no jurisdiction over.
LYNN SEARS: But it is now zoned R-1.
Is there any--
I know there's a move afoot to get it--
ALAN COOPER: Most of it's zoned to R-2 land.
LYNN SEARS: R-2?
ALAN COOPER: Most of it's zoned to R-2, yeah.
LYNN SEARS: OK, there's a move afoot to get it--
ALAN COOPER: A part that's chock a block around it.
LYNN SEARS: OK, to get it down-zoned to conservation.
Is the planning commission making a big push for this?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: What we are going to do
is we're going to look at a resolution
that the county planning commission passed
asking the board of supervisors to do a study at the Rivanna
Reservoir.
And I'm going to bring that to the attention of the planning
commission and see whether they are interested in doing
the same thing to city council.
I think one of the main things we
can do is encourage a study of why and what is affecting
the reservoir and to see whether this can be turned around
or whether it's hopeless.
We know that eutrophication-- that
is, pollution in the reservoir-- has gone to a certain point,
and we don't know why.
We need that information, I think.
ALAN COOPER: Let me get to something I know y'all have
some control over, and that's the Architectural Historic
District downtown.
Sandy, I imagine you're especially interested in that.
SANDY LAMBERT: Well, actually, I think probably Ginny,
having worked on the historic land commission,
or whichever it was called, and study of the district
might have had more to say about it than I. What is proposed
is an enlargement of the architectural design
control of the historic area--
a limitation on height, even if it overlaps into a zone that
has allowed higher heights in the past,
and, perhaps, more language with regard to some preservation
efforts where demolition comes into effect
of providing procedure where the public can react
before the demolition of a structure
to save it if the public school chooses to.
There's a little bit of conflict there, too,
to the person who wishes to tear down a piece of property
that he does not consider to be of great a merit.
But someone else thinks it is.
ALAN COOPER: We [INAUDIBLE] and accepted that at the Levy Opera
House [INAUDIBLE].
That type of thing.
SANDY LAMBERT: Yes, that was a case where
when a previous owner wanted to convert it
into a commercial use, the public came before council, who
basically, by turning down a rezoning petition,
allowed the public time to react and to form a group of citizens
who were interested in preserving the building.
LYNN SEARS: Do you know if they've done any other work
since council's decision?
SANDY LAMBERT: On Levy Opera House?
LYNN SEARS: Yes.
SANDY LAMBERT: That's a terribly sore subject.
[LAUGHTER]
LYNN SEARS: I mean, they were very
anxious to have something done and to not
have it be a juvenile domestic relations court.
Are they now working really hard to get it restored?
SANDY LAMBERT: To my knowledge, there
is a private group who is working on it,
and it sounds as if their efforts will not be in vain,
or at least that they're heading in the right direction.
Their objective is to restore it as a town hall
and not as an opera house.
LEROY BRUTON: I think one of the questions
on this architectural design control district where
the planning commission may have differences of opinion,
similar to the flood plain, is whether or not
the people who own those properties
within the architectural design control district
should bear the burden of the preservation
when they may have other interests involved.
And it does place fairly heavy restrictions and delays
upon them.
And I believe it also extends to houses over 100 years old?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Houses built before 1870 will now be--
ALAN COOPER: Does the word compensation
come to your tongue there, Leroy?
[LAUGHTER]
LEROY BRUTON: Compensation-- abnormal restrictions
of freedom of use of property, I think, bothers me somewhat.
We have not voted on any of these things,
and I think that all of us are waiting
for public input on these things to see
what the general reaction is.
I'm a native Charlottesvillian, and I appreciate
the historical heritage.
I'm just not sure that I feel entirely
free to ask somebody else to pay for that without being
willing to pay for it on my own end.
SANDY LAMBERT: It'd be good chance
to emphasize the point that the public hearings are
a vehicle for the public to let us know what their reaction is
to the proposed ordinance, and give us a chance to incorporate
their before it goes on city council for public hearings
again.
ALAN COOPER: Have your phones been ringing?
SANDY LAMBERT: I've been away, so I can't--
[LAUGHTER]
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I had one phone call from a resident
at Brandywine Drive asking when she could appear.
But no, the phones have not been ringing.
And I'd be glad to feel that more people were really
interested in this, because the zoning ordinance can
affect them.
And we would like to get them there,
so that they know how it can affect them.
LEROY BRUTON: I dare say it will affect them
in some way or other in each and every case.
ALAN COOPER: I dare say the phones will ring too.
[LAUGHTER]
JERRY MASHAW: We have received some written comments
from several individuals and groups
in the last couple of weeks--
some fairly extensive ones.
ALAN COOPER: Are they pretty predictable lines of thought?
JERRY MASHAW: No, I wouldn't that they're predictable.
ALAN COOPER: I mean, they can find--
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
ALAN COOPER: --whether it's on one side and the developers
on the other.
I mean, that's an oversimplification
'cause I know both of them make very reasonable suggestions.
But they do come from different viewpoints sometimes.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I have heard that there
are three neighborhood groups that have gotten together
and are preparing a presentation for each of the three nights
as a group.
And I think this is highly commendable thing
because I think they have gotten together.
They have thought these things through.
And I've been encouraging them to make a presentation
but also to present it as a written document,
so that we can have that in our hands at a later date.
I think this interest in neighborhood groups
in their own city and in the ordinance of their own city
is a very important thing.
LYNN SEARS: Specifically, what is this presentation going
to be about?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I haven't heard it yet, so I don't know.
LYNN SEARS: I mean, what neighborhood groups?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think the Venable group, the Barracks
Road group, and the downtown residential group around 1st
and 2nd Streets, as far as I know, have gotten together.
NEAL OSBORNE: Do you anticipate any outcry from the Brandywine
residents about your rezoning at the corner of Hydraulic Road
then?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: If we had no outcry from the Brandywine
residents, it's because they didn't know it was existing,
I think.
I hope that they are aware of the proposed
rezoning to R-2 on that corner.
And I hope they'll come down and discuss it with us,
and maybe we can tell them why we propose it.
ALAN COOPER: What's the current zoning there?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: R-1.
NEAL OSBORNE: Do you fear that four family units there
might detract from the value of the houses
further up Brandywine?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: My own feeling is
it would not detract if it were done properly.
And I think within our zoning ordinance
we have enough control now--
or we will under the new zoning ordinance--
have enough control over the kind of development
that might go there, so that it would have very little effect,
if any, on the residents.
I think my hope for that area is that any houses that go in it
can be clustered in the rather small, flat area,
leaving the edges of it as a green space and as a buffer.
With the old ordinance, you could not
do this because of sideline requirements
that couldn't be overlooked.
So that area was never developed.
In the new ordinance, you can cluster houses,
so that they can be put in the areas
where the land can be used for houses, reasonably,
leaving the buffering area.
You can also have a private driveway going in
to serve all of these houses, so that you
don't need 10 or 20 different separate entrances or exits
in that area.
This will mean a tremendous benefit
as far as traffic flows go.
You can have one good entrance or exit
to serving all of these houses, rather than
10 or 20 separate ones.
LEROY BRUTON: I think the important distinction
when you're talking about single family
as opposed to other types of housing
is that, it seems to me, you could draw
an analogy between four $25,000 homes, which in today's housing
cost would simply be the simplest box of the most
definite rectangle and straight roof.
But if you took that combination of $25,000
and multiplied it by 4, and you can have $100,000 building,
you have a building that has more mass, probably
more broken roof lines and that sort of thing,
and gives you a better appearing structure overall
than having four of these things scattered out.
And the cluster development follows this same sort
of concept.
ALAN COOPER: That'd be a good place for a PUD, Leroy?
LEROY BRUTON: I think that'd be an excellent place for a PUD.
I think that's the ideal type of location for a PUD.
ALAN COOPER: I talked to you last week.
You mentioned that this would be a good ordinance
if you had reasonable planning commissions and councils.
Do you think that there is a, shall we say,
a greater opportunity for arbitrariness
on the part of planning commissions
and councils in the proposed ordinance
than in the current one?
LEROY BRUTON: No, I don't think it's any greater opportunity
to be arbitrary.
I hope, and I think that my fellow commissioners share
this feeling, that we have tried to build viable flexible tools
for planning to allow developers to do what they need to do
but also do it in a good environment
in a good, aesthetic way to improve the city.
Now if political pressures or other planning commissions
have different points of view, it's
conceivable that it would not create that ultimate conclusion
the design that we placed in it today.
But I don't think it provides any more
room for being arbitrary than existing ordinance.
All of these ordinances have some latitude for discretion,
of course.
Discretionary judgment, I should say.
NEAL OSBORNE: [INAUDIBLE] the spectrum
from one of the housing PUDs, you've got a new zone in there
for mobile homes.
I gather you're not encouraging mobile homes
to come into the city.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Not really.
I don't think members of the planning commission
are really opposed to mobile homes.
We want to see the people who live in mobile homes have
the same kind of residential opportunities as other people.
And we have tried to design a mobile home park
residential area.
Up to now, mobile homes were only
allowed in a business B-2 area or lower.
This meant that most of the mobile homes
are smack next to a manufacturing or heavy business
use.
And they're very much crowded together.
Our district presently calls for eight units an acre,
which is what we understood to be the Virginia
statewide building code designation.
We're going to look into seeing whether we
can raise that density, because that's an R-1 density.
That's our lowest residential density, and it's rather,
I think, not very good to require
mobile homes to have the same density as an R-1 district.
So we might up that density.
But still, we feel that there should be amenities.
There should be some space between mobile homes
that people can enjoy living there
more instead of being crowded or in an unpleasant area.
NEAL OSBORNE: Well, once again, in the mobile home district,
you get to this concept of the ordinance
says you may develop this piece of land.
You may put an extra number of units.
You may put mobile homes on this piece of land,
so long as you provide laundry, and recreational facilities,
and open space, and parking, and god knows what else.
That's a fine concept.
But I think we've all lived in--
I know I've lived in apartment complexes where there
is a playground, and a swimming pool,
and a recreation area, and a laundry.
But they're all dilapidated, and nobody
bothers to keep them up once they've been built.
What is there in your ordinance to ensure
that these facilities, once built, will be maintained.
so they're usable?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I don't think any zoning
ordinance can see that things, once built, are maintained.
I think, again, it's up to the residents who
live there to see that they are maintained in the sense
that if things get too dilapidated,
they're obviously health hazards.
Also the new landlord-tenant laws of the state of Virginia,
I think, will help very much in this respect,
because any tenants who find that their place is too
run down, and not maintained, and a health hazard can,
by using the proper procedures, now
withhold their rent until these things are maintained.
I think it's the same thing as an R-1
zone close to the university.
It's up to the people who live there to see
that the laws are enforced.
LEROY BRUTON: I'd like to put in a plug
here since we talked about every other way of getting this,
is the old competition of people who want to attract tenants,
in the free competitive marketplace,
want to have the best facilities they can to draw them away.
And the fellow who's not providing
as good of facilities for these things
is going to lose his tenants.
And he's going to suffer the economic consequences.
And this, to me, is the most usable and useful tool
for enforcement of these things.
And all the zoning ordinances and landlord-tenant laws
and all those things will never be
as effective as that economic stick.
LYNN SEARS: We had a phone call, and the caller dropped off.
If you hear a ringing signal, just hold on,
and we'll get to you.
And our number is 296-6151.
Now that annexation is just a memory,
what control does the city have on the 3-mile limit
around the city, as far as subdivision plans,
et cetera are concerned?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I still sign all subdivisions
that are done in the county within the 3-mile limit.
The county came in with a new subdivision ordinance,
and we agreed with it to the extent
that we felt that the city's interest in it
was limited to seeing that it did not
have an adverse impact on areas of the city that
would be close to it.
And that is what we proposed.
And the final version has not come out.
We haven't heard any more about it from then.
ALAN COOPER: I think the county's position was
that this was an antiquated statute that
didn't have much validity in--
well, it was designed for days when counties
didn't have zoning and didn't exercise
much control over development.
I thought that some of the county officials were being
high-handed in their--
didn't seem to care whether y'all approved it or not.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think it does have an effect
on the city in certain areas.
For example, there was a developer
who wanted to put townhouses in an area of the city that
was right next to an R-1 zone that had very, very
narrow, old roads on it.
And this would have put a tremendous amount of traffic
on these roads going right through this R-1 area.
And we turned it down.
We denied our approval for it, and it has not been built.
I think most of the developments within this three-mile limit
of the county are fine.
I have no complaint about them.
But every once in a while, you come up
with something like this, where the access is
almost impossible.
And it could have a very dramatic impact
on city residents.
LEROY BRUTON: The use of parks and facilities nearby within
the political subdivision of Charlottesville within a 3-mile
limit--
if these facilities are built for residents of the city
and are used primarily because of the newness of them
by residents of the county then that can create a problem.
So we're interested in what happens close by to the city.
ALAN COOPER: You mentioned parks.
This is a little off the subject.
Is it reasonable to expect that all recreational facilities,
no matter which of the jurisdictions builds
and maintains them, they're going to be used just about
equally by the people?
LEROY BRUTON: I think it's nice to have an overlap,
but I have visited with my brother and sister-in-law
in Richmond this past weekend.
And they're in the city of Richmond now,
and the tennis courts and public parks
you have to have a residence card on the tennis courts and
what have you, because it has gotten
to be a burdensome problem from adjacent counties
coming in and using the facilities.
And the people who live there and pay the taxes
for these facilities are not able to use them.
And in this case, Richmond has found it necessary,
and it's conceivable that Charlottesville might someday
in the future find it necessary to limit their facilities
to those who pay for them.
ALAN COOPER: Yeah, on the other hand, though, it seems to me
the county's providing [INAUDIBLE] and [INAUDIBLE]
facilities that the city just can't duplicate.
LEROY BRUTON: I agree, and I hope
they will have a good exchange for some years to come.
But it's not impossible that this won't work out.
LYNN SEARS: We have another phone call at 296-6151.
Hopefully it will work.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
AUDIENCE: Yes, there was a public outcry a year
or so ago when the proposed Orangedale subdivision
was cleared before the developer came
to the planning commission.
I wonder if the commission could explain how the new zoning
ordinance will prevent such things from happening
in the future.
LYNN SEARS: Thank you, very much.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Jerry, you went to take that one?
JERRY MASHAW: All right.
The new zoning ordinance has in it
a series of permit requirements.
And one of those requirements is that if you
are going to clear any land prior to the time
that you obtain a building permit,
you're going to have to have a grading permit.
And the grading permit requires a submission of a grading plan.
And there is written into that section of the ordinance a tree
and green space preservation section, which
we hope will be effective in controlling the sort of thing
that some people were concerned about in Orangedale.
I think we ought to make it clear, though,
for purposes of public consumption
that the planning commission does not have information
in its possession that the Orangedale subdivision was
cleared in a way which was inappropriate
given the topography of that land
and what was planned for it.
No investigation has been made by the planning
commission on that point.
So that's while we're concerned about preventing
wholesale destruction of trees and other greenery,
I don't think we should leave the impression that we
are passing an Orangedale ordinance,
because we haven't investigated that situation.
NEAL OSBORNE: As a forward developer, Leroy,
do you see that system of grading permits and this permit
for this, permit for that, and permit
for the other-- do you think that's going
to discourage developers?
LEROY BRUTON: No, I really don't.
I'm not terribly sure--
and, again waiting for public reaction.
I'm not totally sure we haven't overdone this grading permit
thing as it applies--
we've been talking about as it applies to developers,
and that's, in general, why we wrote it that way.
But the grading permit ordinance will apply pretty much to each
and every resident and each and every zone,
including R-1 and R-2--
our single-family and duplex houses
for people who want to grade their yards and move dirt.
I'm not sure that we haven't overdone it
in that particular respect.
I'm not convinced that we have achieved
a complete preservation through the grading permit ordinance,
and that it's a matter of complying
with the requirements of the code stated in the ordinance.
And it does not necessarily go to the root of preservation.
I'm not sure that we really have control over what
is done within the grading.
It's just that they have to put it on paper and show it to us.
And--
NEAL OSBORNE: Do you have a better suggestion then?
LEROY BRUTON: I'm very much in favor of the concept,
in principle.
It's one of the things that I have
logged in my notes to bring up again
and to have further discussion on.
I'm interested in any public input
at the public hearings on it.
But I don't think it's as refined in that particular area
as we may wind up with.
I think we could probably do better.
I don't have any specific suggestion at this time,
except to try to hit it-- the problem we're
trying to hit at, try to have some real solid control
over it, rather than just going through the rudiments
of submitting the details and eliminate
the nuisance value of it to individual residents who
are doing minor grading in their yards and that sort of thing,
because I think that would be more
of an administrative nuisance and a nuisance to our citizens
than it's worth.
ALAN COOPER: Ginny, I know that, I think,
two and possibly three of the planning commission members
are going to be gone by the end of the month.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: That's right.
ALAN COOPER: End of next month, I should say.
And someone said earlier that it's
been the way that changed--
[INAUDIBLE] changes in the ordinance and the staff.
Do you all want to get it done by the ends of August
if you can?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think we want to get the major part of it
done, yes, by the end of August.
Now whether we have the whole thing passed and ready
go to city council by then, I have my doubts.
But I think it's very difficult for brand-new planning
commissioners to come in and take 123-page zoning
ordinance and a large, complicated map
and really understand the implications of all
the little details.
Now surely, people coming in will have a very good voice
on the major issues.
And I'm sure that they'll be made aware of these issues
if they have to participate in any sense of approving them.
But I hope to get the nitty gritty, hard-grinding detail
work out of the way before the changeover occurs.
ALAN COOPER: Some of that detail work, I know,
is the appeals procedure.
Leroy, you said you weren't quite sure you had that
down right, not quite yet.
LEROY BRUTON: Yeah, I think that we've
got a considerable amount of work to do on the ordinance
yet.
I think that we have stated, essentially, the philosophies
of the planning commission.
I'm not sure we have a total consensus on each
and every point throughout, but we
have the point at least on the table
to where it can be discussed fairly.
And I think the public, if they do come forth,
as I hope they will on these various issues that affect
them, whether any one of the planning commissioners
are for a particular aspect of it, as I say,
it's on the table for discussion, pro or con.
And so I think we'll get a fair idea of public input
in some of these things.
I think all of us are waiting to really hear
what the public's reaction is to them, because we need
that help in deciding some of these philosophical issues,
I believe.
NEAL OSBORNE: We've only had one phone call assuming--
LYNN SEARS: Two.
NEAL OSBORNE: Two phone calls, OK.
We lost one.
Ginny, I think you said you'd had one phone call.
We've had some expressing some input
from neighborhood associations.
Apart from that, what if nobody turns up
in the next three days?
Will you set it for public hearing again?
Or will you figure people are not interested?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: I think that would be
up to the planning commission.
I certainly couldn't answer that, no.
If people don't turn out, it either
means that they're satisfied or they don't know about it.
I hope the ones that are satisfied
turn out too, because I'd hate to hear from nobody
but the ones that are unhappy.
I think people don't really, I think,
understand until they get into zoning how it can affect them.
And we've made an effort to get people to understand this,
but it takes time.
It may not be until the thing gets in front of city council
that many people will begin to be aware of what
zoning will mean to them.
But I'm hoping that the planning commission itself
will get the major impact of the public sentiment,
and that city council will be left, more or less,
with major issues to resolve, which would always
be the case in any event.
NEAL OSBORNE: One other concept I
think is contained in the ordinance I wanted to question
you about was scenic highways.
You have three, right?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Let's see.
We have designated the 250 bypass
from St. Clair Avenue, west to the city boundary.
We have also designated the new 5th Street
from the southern city boundary up to Cherry Avenue,
and Ridge McIntire from Preston Avenue to the city boundary.
We're looking ahead to the day when
the road, which is planned, will go through McIntire Park
and on up to Rio.
This happens to be a connection that I
think is very important for the city transportation system
and the city road system.
But we want to look ahead to the time
when people will want to come in and put commercial developments
within sight of these roads.
It would be nice if we could have
nothing but rolling hills around us,
but this is not likely to be.
So what we have done so far is to limit
signs along these roads to propose that no freestanding
or projecting signs being allowed along these roads.
Right now, I think there's maybe one freestanding or projecting
sign that might be nonconforming.
So we're hoping to get them prohibited before there are
any that have to be taken down.
NEAL OSBORNE: The 250 bypass is a very pleasant road,
right now.
4th Street could be a fine entrance to the city.
Most of it is undeveloped still.
Don't you think you should have done more than just take away
freestanding signs to preserve these entrances to the city?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Perhaps.
We'd like to hear from the public on that.
Do they think we should do more?
We need public support for this type of thing.
And if the city is willing to support it,
then I think the planning commission will listen.
LYNN SEARS: We are almost out of time.
You might want to run down, again, about the planning
commission hearings very briefly.
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Planning commission hearings
will be held this week on Tuesday, on Wednesday,
and on Thursday nights.
We are going to consider residential and manufacturing
zones on Tuesday, plus the map.
On Wednesday, mostly the business zones,
plus the architectural design control areas.
On Thursday night, we will consider
the floodplain and the sign ordinance, among other things.
LYNN SEARS: You've left out one thing.
Where and when will they be held?
VIRGINIA SCHATZ: Oh!
They will be held in city hall and city council chambers
starting at 7:30.
LYNN SEARS: And if you care about your zoning ordinance,
I'm sure you'll be able to talk about it and comment.
We've been talking to the members of the Charlottesville
Planning Commission, Sandy Lambert, Jerry Mashaw, Virginia
Schatz, and Leroy Bruton.
Members of the Press Corps present tonight
are Alan Cooper of the Richmond Times
Dispatch, Neal Osborne of the Charlottesville Daily Progress.
And I'm Lynn Sears, WINA News.
Good night.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
SANDY LAMBERT: Another two hours, I
might have covered the whole subject.
LYNN SEARS: Yeah, I still have quite a few questions
left to ask.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]