CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA (CVILLE RIGHT NOW) – Evenly divided 3-to-3 on the proposal Riverbend Development submitted, for the southwest corner of the I-64/Route 29 interchange, the Albemarle County Planning Commission agreed Tuesday evening to defer a decision on the proposal until December 16. The deferral was actually at the request of the applicant who wants to update the plan to adequately address the residential-commercial usage mix and offer better affordable housing options.
The proposal calls for a maximum 1200 homes, but could be much less than that.
“My greatest heartburn with this site is the proposal itself because I don’t know if I’m voting for 100 units of housing or 1200 units of housing, I don’t know if I’m voting for 50,000 square-foot of commercial or 440,000 square-feet,” said Sam Miller Commissioner Karen Firehock.
Another large issue among some commissioners and many of those who turned out to speak at the hearing was impact on traffic at what has been a perpetually challenged I-64/29 bypass area. County Planning Director Michael Barnes said two VDOT projects are looking to relieve some of the impact potential. One is closing the northbound left turn lane from northbound 29 to westbound 64 to trucks, and have them continue north to Fontaine, get off that ramp, u-turn underneath the underpass, then get back on the southbound ramp so they’ll have a right lane merge onto the westbound I-64 ramp. The second project Barnes said VDOT is looking at is improving the performance of the traffic light at the new southbound 29 left turn lanes onto the eastbound I-64 ramp. He told the commission that configuration hasn’t worked out as well as VDOT would like.
A number of residents who turned out to speak at the commission were similar concerned about that traffic issue while adding the traffic of potentially 1200 homes into the mix.
“I understand about greater queing space might be provided by this truck u-turn that’s going to go into Fontaine, turn around and come back down, and then go west,” Firehook said.
“But I don’t understand why VDOT can’t get this right and I don’t have faith in that proposal either.”
Another concern is the affordable housing mix. The proposal was drawn up when the county required the 15% affordable housing benchmark for 80% AMI. However, Scottsville Commissioner, and Commission Chair, Fred Missell noted supervisors have been pushing for more.
Among the commissioners who supported the Tuesday proposal was Jack Jouett Commissioner Julian Bivins. “I’m supportive of the project because I think it is in a location that will help spread out some of the density we’re having in other parts of the county.”
Bivins said there’s a lot of space where this proposal is, and it’s in a development area. He said failure to develop in an area such as this will continue to put more density pressure on northern parts of the county in districts like his and the Rio District.
“This is exactly the kind of land that county leaders 45 years ago decided should be a focus of our growth, and we live in a growing metro that’s an attractive place to live and people want to move here,” said Rio Commissioner Nathan Moore.
Commissioners Firehock and Missell expressed concerns about the wide continuum of residential units possible in the development at the expense of commercial. Firehock said they’ve approved project with wide leeway before, and it has often resulted in more residential and minimal commercial development. The issue a residential unit costs a locality more in services compared to tax revenue than a commercial property.
Rivanna Commissioner Corey Clayborne observed that the location of the project might be an exception.
“With it being the 29 and 64 interchange, it seems ripe for the commercial,” Clayborne said.
He said though there’s the wide range, it’s likely this location will result in more commercial development than some of the other project locations in the county.
The developer said they’ll most likely need only a couple of weeks, though some commissioners were willing to leave an indefinite time period. However, an indefinite time period would have required another round of advertisement and another public hearing, so they set a definite date of December 16 to avoid that procedure.
Click here to see the meeting and presentations.
