2000-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

200 Mr. Payton said that in Bethesda, Maryland, Federal Realty did a phased approach with a shopping center, adding office to retail, then residential. Mr. Toscano said it is a priority for him to have the staff work with the owners and let the market go. Mr. Caravati said he does support this idea and feels that it is also important to work with the University. Mr. Caravati said that a troubling issue is this is a gateway to the University and the western bypass is important to its future success. He said transportation needs to be a companion issue. Mr. Cox said he embraces thi_~ but does not know what level of public support it should receive (i.e., parking). 1Vk. Lynch said student housing could be put across from the shopping center, and said we should focus on that. Mr. Lynch said the shopping center is so successful that he does not see a need for staff to work on it except for the residential piece. It was the consensus of Council to continue to focus on the conceptual design, with residential being a piece of it, perhaps across the street from the shopping center. Ms. Richards said she wants to know that we are not messing up a good thing with the shopping center. Ms. Clay-Christensen said the second issue for consideration is: Encourage Highest Priority Projects or Redevelopment Opportunities. Two significant downtown parcels are owned or partially owned by the City: two blocks on Water Street bisected by 2~d Street, and the City Yard located west of Mclntire. Development of these two sites will likely have the greatest impact on the revitalization effort in the City of Charlottesville. These sites should be evaluated with regards to the development vision Ibr the project/site, specific needs and obstacles associated with the site, and appropriate public assistance that may be necessary to reach the desired development vision, such as: site assembly; public funding ofpredevelopment including site clearance; public assistance to promote parking construction; provision of other infrastructure; and financing assistance. Attracting development interest in these sites will likely require that the City send our Request for Qualifications (RFQs) and/or Requests for Proposals (RFPs). The RFQs/RFPs should outline the development vision for the particular site, as well as advertise any incentives that will be available to the developer. The decision points are Council on this issue are: I) Do you agree that these are the two areas where we should focus our efforts due to the oppommity for the greatest return on investment and 2) Should staffbegin the process to develop the sites outlined by the consultants? Mr. Cox said that. the Water Street lots seem ready to go, but he sees potential obstacles at City Yard, and questioned whether the two projects are really in the same position. Mrs. Caravafi said there are two levels of hunch, -with one close to the proposal stage and one needing to be studied. Mr. Cox asked how the City Yard will be studied further, and Mr. Aubrey Watts, Director of Economic Development, said that part of the issue is the willingness of the owners in that arm to assemble ali the sites. The study would involved looking at acceptable uses and developing a master plan. Mr. Watts said the question is whether staff should start examining it is a more aggressive way. Mr. Lynch said he is generally supportive, but does not think we should do anything until we work with the neighborhood first. Ms. Clay-C~istensen asked if Mr. Lynch would be comfortable moving forward if the process is defined as involving the neighborhood, and he said yes.