Charlottesville council authorizes negotiations to potentially vacate Clark Court, 3–2

City Council voted 3–2 to signal its desire to vacate Clark Court and direct city staff and the city attorney to negotiate terms with the adjoining landowner, the Jefferson Scholars Foundation. The vote opens negotiation but did not complete any sale or change in ownership.

Staff recommended denying the vacation at the hearing, saying the application lacked sufficient development detail and that critical water, gas and sewer mains in Clark Court could require complex reconfiguration or easements. Development planning manager Matt Aufley told council that the utility impacts cannot be determined until a detailed site plan is submitted. "Staff recommends denial of the vacation request based on several factors," Aufley said during his presentation.

Representatives for the Jefferson Scholars Foundation said the foundation owns the parcels around the cul-de-sac and wants to realign the roadway into a private driveway to improve access and better accommodate the foundation's offices, students and guests. Helen Dwyer, representing the foundation, said the foundation would provide utility easements and continue to make parking available to the public and customers. "We will continue to offer our parking lot to the public and restaurant customers during working hours and on weekends," Dwyer said.

Councilors and members of the public pressed for clarity on timing, public benefit, and valuation. Staff noted that the city’s vacation policy contemplates negotiations and that the ordinance presented in the packet included a draft deed as an example only; the deed language and sale price would be negotiated if council chose to proceed. Owner’s representative Jake Kessler described the practical constraint facing the foundation: the group is not prepared to spend the money to produce a full site plan until they have assurance the vacation can move forward. He said a "yes, but"—approval to negotiate—would allow the applicant to invest in the engineering and site planning needed to resolve outstanding utility and circulation issues.

The vote authorizes staff to enter negotiations; it does not approve a conveyance, deed, or final ordinance. Council discussion and the city’s street-vacation policy indicate that any transfer would return to council for final action after negotiated terms (including price and utility easements) are incorporated into a final ordinance.

Council recorded the motion as passed 3–2. The record does not list individual vote names in the meeting transcript. Staff will report back if the parties reach negotiated terms or if a subsequent ordinance is prepared for final action.