Eat Me

So you are Really Hungry. Do you eat the mushroom or do you consult the mycologist, then possibly eat the mushroom? Charlottesville City Council faces just such a dilemma this evening. Do we rush or do we think?

Author: WmX

I stumbled off the track to success in 1968, started chasing shadows that summer. Since then, In addition to farm-laborer and newspaper photographer my occupational incarnations include dishwasher, janitor, retail photo clerk, plumber, HVAC repairman, auto mechanic, CAT scan technologist, computer worker and politico (whatever it takes to buy a camera.) I am on the road to understanding black and white photography.

One thought on “Eat Me”

  1. There has been a significant evolution of the Gregory/Papa Carlton Avenue projects as Elected and Appointed bodies have been able to identify impacts not identified by planning staff, and respond with conditions that required beneficial responses from the developers.

    The only impact foreseen and conditioned by staff in 2013 was the potential for 85′ tall apartment buildings for which staff suggested a height restriction.
    All the other failings of the 2013 development plan that have been addressed with conditions were sussed out by the planning commission and council in the two hour and thirty-eight minutes 5/14/2013 Joint Public Hearing.

    Those impacts included:
    Total lack of open space
    No provision of pedestrian circulation on site
    Building/parking-lot orientation

    Was the City bamboozled by the developer? Did Papa and Gregory have greater insight into our zoning ordinance than our Council, Commission and Staff?
    As staff presented the project that night in 2013, the only question was whether the 21 DUA density was correct on this site.
    It was brilliant of the developers to request a MI Special Use Permit to get their residential component on Carlton Avenue. There are no design requirements in the MI + SUP zoning that would incline the resulting structures toward being more than isolated people warehouses in parking lots.
    Council and the PC largely did an excellent job in the face of little help from planning staff.
    But there was one impact that was not identified, the demographic profile of the residents, their ages.

    Look at the standards for open space in the R-3 zoning (pasted in below). If these had been adopted to address potential impact of families with children living in the project then we wouldn’t be tangled on the horns of bad design as we now find ourselves.

    We all (myself included) bought the developers’ resident profile, hook line and sinker.

    In the October 6, 2014 request for CAHF monies for Carlton Views Ithe developers’ packet said:

    Tenant base
    Based on our experience with other Affordable Housing+Services projects, we anticipate that:
    • Majority of tenants receiving PACE Subsidy will be between the ages of 70 and 85
    • Majority of seniors with disabilities will be living alone
    • Very few school-age children
    • Many 2-bedroom units will be occupied by a person with a disability and a caregiver (e.g., senior living with their adult child, or parent living with a disabled adult child.

    Kevin Wood (developer’s representative) has twice made clear in the past 5 weeks that the above tenant profile is not the case. There are 3 PACE participants in CVI!

    AGE DEMOGRAPHICS of Carlton Views I

    18 years old or less= 18
    19-35= 21
    36-54= 14
    62+ =15

    So. Do not approve the rezoning until the developers provide adequate detail on their PUD development plan for “green space” that is supportive of the residents. As Dr. Bellamy said: tot lots, protected seating areas, somewhere to grille, somewhere to shoot baskets.
    Don’t let them rush you with “we are not going to get the loan” scare tactics.
    This project will be your legacy.
    Get it right.

Comments are closed.