High Growth Coalition meets in Culpeper to discuss new state regulations impacting land use and transportation

By Julia Glendening
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, July 3, 2009

The Virginia Coalition of High Growth Communities, is a membership association for local government officials from counties in Virginia with rapid residential development. Also known as the High Growth Coalition, the group met on June 29, 2009 in Culpeper to listen to speakers and discuss three major topics: the regulation of alternative onsite sewage systems; new stormwater management requirements; and VDOT’s secondary street requirements. The focus of the discussion was to examine how local governments will be influenced by changes in legislation approved by the General Assembly and speakers stressed how important it is for local officials to make their opinions heard.  Albemarle County is a member of the Coalition and was represented by Supervisors Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Ann Mallek (White Hall), and Mark Graham, the County’s Director of Community Development.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090629-coalition-high-growth-communities

Alternative Onsite Sewage Systems (AOSS)

According to the Code of Virginia (§ 32.1-163), a conventional onsite sewage system consists of one or more septic tanks flowing to a gravity distributed drainfield. An alternative onsite sewage system does not have the characteristics of a conventional system and does not flow to a point source discharge, such as a pipe.  An AOSS can treat sewage with a device other than a septic tank, such as a media filter, which uses other ways to separate the sewage, for example with peat, byproducts of coal, or foam cubes. Pressurized systems are also used instead of gravity to distribute the wastewater within a drainfield.

Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed two bills (HB 1788  and SB 1276) declaring that local governments cannot prohibit the use of alternative onsite sewage systems, both of which went into effect on July 1, 2009. Previously, a building permit could be withheld if the soil on site would not support a traditional septic system and public sewer was not available to the property.  In compliance with the interim requirements of the new legislation, alternative systems installed after July 1, 2009 will have to be operated and maintained by the most stringent policies declared by the manufacturer, the local government, or the state. These will be replaced by the Board of Health emergency regulations in April 6, 2010 and final regulations at the end of 2010.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Jeff McDaniel, local Environmental Health Manager for the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), said in 2008 about 74 alternative systems were approved in Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa, Greene, and Nelson Counties. McDaniel said Albemarle did not prohibit the use of alternative systems prior to this year’s legislation and he thought the legislation would have more of an effect on other regions of Virginia.

Albemarle County's Mark Graham, told Charlottesville Tomorrow that, before the new legislation went into effect this week, alternative onsite sewage systems were allowed only when an existing conventional system had failed. Graham said a developer previously had to demonstrate a conventional system could be implemented in order to get a building plan approved. Under the new law, an alternative system could be specified up front and local government would not be able to deny a development right.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) expressed concern about the potential for increased residential growth on previously undevelopable land in an update she gave to the Board of Supervisors at their July 1 meeting.

“We have regarded whether land [percolates for septic] or not as a land use control,” said Thomas. “Now that will no longer be a controlling factor.”

McDaniel noted that about 5 to 10% of building permits with conventional sewage systems have been denied in the past year due to various limiting factors, such as soil or location limitations.

“I see it [alternative systems] as a positive thing,” said McDaniel. “Conventional systems treat the sewage, but alternative systems clean the sewage to a different level. There are places where alternative systems can be used to better treat the effluent.”

He emphasized the importance of properly maintaining all types of sewage systems and said he saw the new maintenance regulations as a way to improve VDH’s existing procedures.

“I think we’re going to clarify some better maintenance and monitoring of not just alternative but conventional [systems],” said McDaniel.

Panelists at the Coalition meeting, however, discussed potential problems with the AOSS regulations. Trapper Davis, from the Coastal Plains Environmental Group, LLC, said he maintains these systems and was also concerned with the cost for residential clients, which is currently $400 for a year of maintenance. He said that may deter people from keeping their sewage systems properly maintained. Davis also said he believed industry professionals do not have enough knowledge about proper maintenance for AOSS and this could be a problem once the interim regulations go into effect.

Bob Lee, from the Loudoun County Health Department, said many homeowners are unaware their sewage system is an AOSS, which could create a problem for trying to identify systems for inspection. Lee also emphasized the importance of establishing quantitative performance standards.

Allen Knapp, from the Virginia Department of Health, said the frequency and cost of monitoring are major issues for the implementation of AOSS.

Stormwater Management Requirements

The state is currently changing storm water management regulations for construction, local programs, and permit fees in order to increase water quality standards, in compliance with EPA standards for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) was created in 2004 with House Bill 1177, which authorized local authorities to implement stormwater management programs. The Soil and Water Conservation Board proposed amendments to parts I, II, III, and XIII of VSMP regulations on September 25, 2008. The amendments are still being discussed and there will be a 60-day public comment ending on August 21, 2009.

Ryan Brown, Policy and Planning Assistant Director for the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, described these amendments and said there will be a stricter phosphorous standard for new development from 0.45 lbs per acre per year to 0.28. The amendments also propose a decrease in nutrient levels for land redevelopment. Currently the standard is a 10% reduction to the predevelopment load and the amendments will require a 20% reduction in nutrients from the predevelopment load.

“This addresses new development and prevents us from making the situation worse,” said Brown.

Lisa Ochsenhirt, of Aqualaw, PLC, described the obligations for local governments in order to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay. She stated the three year milestone goal is to increase the pace of reduction by 86% for nitrogen and 52% for phosphorous during 2009-2011. She said this reduction would cost Virginia’s state government a projected $1.2 billion. Ochsenhirt stated the consequences would include a tightening of regulations and permits, an increase in reporting and auditing, and an increase in lawsuits by the EPA, state, or citizens. She warned the High Growth Coalition that the restrictions would hit the high growth communities the hardest.

Mike Flagg, Director of Public Works for Hanover County, said Hanover had calculated the expense to retrofit areas with stormwater treatment from 2005 data and determined it would cost $1,525 a person. Flagg also declared it would cost $500 or more per lot to maintain the nutrient regulations for stormwater, all of which could create more expensive growth areas.

“We may actually be promoting sprawl with some of these rules,” said Flagg.

Thomas also commented at the Board of Supervisors meeting on how the stormwater regulations will affect Albemarle County.

“Our main concern I think in this community is that if you regulate stormwater in the city or in the urban area more stringently you’re just going to squish development out into the rural area because it will be a lot less expensive in the rural area,” said Thomas.

VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has developed Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR), which will become mandatory July 1, 2009. The SSAR includes three goals: ensuring the connectivity of road and pedestrian networks; minimizing impervious surface area; and addressing performance bonding needs of new secondary streets. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the SSAR in February 2009 and a transition period was instated from March 9 to June 30.

Ted McCormack, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), outlined the requirements, which included a calculated interconnectivity index for each neighborhood. He stressed the importance of interconnectivity and said it would lead to less construction, increased pedestrian safety, a faster emergency vehicle response time, and a more efficient network overall. He said VDOT has determined that on average throughout Virginia, 10% of all trips are walking trips, demonstrating the lack of pedestrian accessibility.

Nick Donahue, Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Virginia, said VDOT has taken a position of not widening the right of way
to reduce congestion because they believe connectivity is a more successful solution.

“It’s much more cost effective for us to have connectivity so that people’s trips to school, the grocery store, etc. are on the local roads than it is for VDOT to widen the main roads,” said Donahue.

Donahue also answered questions about the impact a reduced state budget has had on VDOT. He said there have been cutbacks in many areas due to the decrease from $8.7 billion in revenue in FY2008 to $5.4 billion in FY2010.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST FROM JULY 1, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING

• 01:45 – Dennis Rooker asks about the Virginia Health Department’s view of alternative sewage systems
• 04:45 – David Slutzky discusses the possibility of a cap and trade program
• 06:45 – Rooker asks what local authority will regulate agricultural runoff
• 07:55 – Ann Mallek comments on other counties’ setback requirements

MPO considers re-hiring consultant for further RTA studies

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

At their meeting on June 24, 2009, the MPO Policy Board considered whether to spend additional funds on hiring a consultant to help with the formation of a Regional Transit Authority (RTA), viewed the results of two surveys conducted on the Charlottesville Transit Service and endorsed a letter asking for earlier service for an additional passenger train that will commence in October.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090624-MPO

This chart from the VHB report on the RTA shows potential transit corridors for either an expanded CTS or the proposed authority. Click to enlarge. (Source: VHB)

The basic framework for the proposed RTA has been put in place through work conducted by the firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, and specifically, transportation expert Frank Spielberg. The City and County both contributed $50,000 to match a $90,000 grant from the Federal Transit Administration to pay for their services. 

Their 45-page report outlines several different scenarios by which such an authority might be formed, and details different governing structures under which it might operate. Even more intricate details about how the community could proceed are featured in the 12 appendices that accompany the report.

In August 2008, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors affirmed their willingness to create the RTA during a joint work session. They set up a working group of two Councilors and two Supervisors to help guide the process. Throughout the fall of 2008, this group spent most of their time at several meetings to determine what sort of legislation should be pursued. They decided to ask the General Assembly to pass two pieces of legislation. The first would create the RTA (HB2158), and the second (HB2161) was for permission to ask citizens in a referendum if they would support a sales tax increase of up to 1 cent to fund the RTA’s operations. The General Assembly approved the first bill, but did not approve the second.

On May 14, 2009, the working group met once more to discuss whether it was worthwhile to continue pursuing the RTA’s creation without the favored method of funding. At that meeting, consensus was reached to have Barlow and her staff prepare recommendations on RTA governance issues and to draft a budget to retain a consultant to guide the RTA’s formation and system design. That consensus was ratified by the MPO later that month. Barlow contacted Spielberg to find out how much his services would cost to address some of the remaining issues, and gave four points of his action on which his firm should base a cost estimate:

• Determine what issues must be addressed before the RTA can be formed
• Develop alternative approaches to how to resolve those issues
• Understanding different cost scenarios for each potential resolution
• Develop a comparative analysis of how similar authorities in Virginia have dealt with the issues

A representative from VHB wrote back and said that the first bullet would likely consist of resolving the issues defined in the initial report’s Appendix J. While that section of the report contains an implementation schedule that largely assumed approval of a funding mechanism, many of the questions asked have yet to be answered or fully addressed, such as:

• Do the jurisdictions want to establish the principles, or the detailed methodology, for cost sharing prior to establishment of an Authority?
• What process should be used to develop a Memorandum of Understanding before proceeding to an Authority?
• Does the County accept the cost of providing service as computed by CTS staff? If not, what would the County need to accept the cost computations?
• Should the Authority strive to establish a fully independent organization or should it obtain some services from the City and County?
• How are costs of providing service allocated to the member jurisdictions?
• How are costs of capital equipment and facilities allocated to member jurisdictions?
• Can jurisdictions provide in-kind services to fulfill their funding obligations?
• How are revenues received from state and federal programs allocated?
• How are revenues received from UVa or other sources allocated?
• How are revenues accruing to the Authority allocated?
• Do the jurisdictions need to resolve all issues prior to forming the Authority?
• Is the City willing to cede this power to the Authority?
• Is the City willing to continue to allocate a portion of these funds to County services, prior to formation of an Authority?

The letter from VHB says that the above questions, along with others in Appendix J, would be a starting point for a first meeting with Frank Spielberg. It then proposes his attendance at an additional five meetings. VHB’s initial cost estimate assumes using 14 days of Spielberg’s time for meetings as well as an additional six days for research. Spielberg bills at the rate of $215 an hour, suggesting a budget of $40,000.

VHB's report contains multiple references to potential funding sources. This chart refers to revenues available to localities under HB3202 , a transportation funding bill passed in 2007. Click to enlarge. (Source: VHB)

During the MPO’s meeting, Barlow said she wanted to get input on whether this proposed estimate matched the MPO member’s expectations of what Spielberg’s future involvement should be. She also said her contact at the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) said there are least two grant-funding opportunities to help pay for VHB’s additional work. One would be a “technical assistance” grant where VDRPT would pay half of the costs with the rest coming from local sources. The second would be a federal planning grant  in which 80% of funding would come from the federal government, 10% from VDRPT and a required 10% match from localities.

Councilor Satyendra Huja said he was more interested in getting additional information about how to fund the RTA, given that the state denied the sales tax referendum. Barlow referred him to Appendix H of VHB’s RTA plan, which lists several other potential funding mechanisms. She said some of these were discussed at the May 14 meeting of the RTA Working Group.

“Before moving in any direction on how to fund the RTA, the question arose as to exactly what is it going to cost us to develop this in terms of what bridges we need to cost, what we do with employees, what we do with assets,” Barlow said. Huja is also a member of the RTA working group.

Councilor Julian Taliaferro, who is not a member of the RTA working group, asked if Albemarle County would “put up any money” to purchase some of the assets currently owned by City of Charlottesville.

Routes 5 and 7 serve Albemarle County and run twice an hour from 6:00 AM to midnight, Monday through Saturday. Route 7 is one of only two routes that run at all on Sunday. Albemarle County currently pays for the enhanced service

“I guess the question is, are we going to do a study if we don’t know what [Albemarle County’s] commitment is,” Taliaferro asked. “It perplexes me a little bit that we’re going to do a study and we really don’t know if anyone is going to join in.”

Neither Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) nor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) was present to respond. The County’s Chief Planner, David Bennish, was the County’s lone representative at this meeting and he said the purpose of the additional study by VHB would be to determine if there’s a way for the City and County to work together to plan for future transit.

CTS Director Bill Watterson said that the study is a “work in progress” to determine how hard it would be to resolve some of the remaining questions. He said the further study’s scope of work could be expanded or reduced.

Barlow suggested that the discussion should be postponed until the MPO’s July meeting. Huja concurred.

MPO VIEWS TWO PRESENTATIONS ON IMPROVING CTS

At the May 2009 meeting of the MPO Policy Board, Chair David Slutzky had mentioned that a class at Monticello High School had conducted a survey of CTS passengers. Their basic recommendations focused on adding more buses at night, adding more stops at night, and to expand bus service further in Albemarle County.

Download Anna MacIntosh's presentation

Source: Southeastern Institute for Research

Some of these findings were echoed in a more complex survey conducted by the Southeastern Institute of Research. Anna MacIntosh, Program Director for the firm, related the results of her group’s marketing study, which was conducted under the brand “Transportation Tomorrow.” The project was paid for in part by a grant received by the MPO to assess interest in forming a Regional Transit Authority. MacIntosh said the project was designed to increase public awareness of transportation planning. Outreach efforts included a telephone survey, an on-board passenger survey, a widely-promoted online survey as well as a paper survey handed out at places such as Charlottesville’s Senior Center.  As a result, MacIntosh claimed 4,385 citizens participated in the process.

Some of the findings from the random phone survey of 300 citizens:

• 13% of respondents said they are involved in local transportation planning
• 56% said they have never been involved with local transportation planning
• 9% said they ride a bus, including the free trolley, once a week
• 74% said they never ride a bus
• 61% said they do not have a bus stop within a mile of their house
• 11% said they would be likely or very likely to increase their usage in the next year
• 70% said they are unlikely to increase their usage in the next year
• 38% said they would use transit more often if they were closer to stops
• 39% of Albemarle County residents surveyed would be interested in a long distance commuter bus
• 46% said they would ride the bus more often if there were more frequent headways
• 67% are either in favor or very much in favor of establishing a Regional Transit Authority
• 88% said they are in support of a public vote on public funding for the RTA

MPO ADOPTS RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EARLIER AMTRAK TRAIN

Earlier this year, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved three years of funding to launch new daily Amtrak passenger service from Lynchburg to Washington. At the time, it was believed that the service’s schedule would allow for citizens to conduct a full day’s business in the nation’s capitol.

However, when the schedule was released, it depicted the train leaving Lynchburg at 7:43 a.m., with the train not arriving at Union Station until 11:20 a.m. This is because a railroad line owned by the CSX Corporation cannot accommodate the earlier schedule, which is considered a “peak-hour” slot.

At the May 2009 meeting, the MPO Policy Board directed staff to write a resolution asking the VDRPT to “closely monitor the ridership performance during the first year… to determine if it is meeting expectations.” A fear held by some in the community is that the three-year experiment will not be extended if it is not useful for business travelers. The resolution also asks for state transportation officials, including Governor Tim Kaine, “to do everything within the state of Virginia’s legal power and authority to negotiate an additional peak hour slot” for the service.
Service is expected to begin this October.

FEDERAL & STATE OFFICIALS CONFIRM UNJAM 2035 IS ‘FISCALLY CONSTRAINED’

As area planners and elected officials formulate and adopt plans for the community’s future infrastructure, one issue they face concerns how to best represent cost estimates for large capital projects. Critics of the adopted community water supply plan have repeatedly said that plan is unsound because some elements lack definite cost estimates. In June, the Free Enterprise Forum released a critique of the Albemarle County Planning Commission for using current year dollars for road improvement projects called for in Places29 rather than figures adjusted for inflation.

At the MPO’s May 2009 meeting, former City Council candidate Peter Kleeman questioned how the UNJAM 2035 long range transportation plan factors in the costs related to maintenance and upgrade associated with Interstate 64. He said that because that funding can only be used for that purpose, it artificially misleads the public into thinking that the community has more money to spend on transportation projects then it really does.

“There was something on the order of $100 million of funding in the long-range plan that are Interstate dollars that have been distributed for non-Interstate projects,” Kleeman said at the June 2009 meeting. He claimed that as a result, the UNJAM 2035 plan cannot be implemented or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 

Acting MPO Director Melissa Barlow said she reviewed federal regulations after receiving Kleeman’s comments, and said her interpretation was that the federal requirement for “fiscal constraint” takes all sources of funding into consideration: federal, state and local.

“There is no direction that I could find that you needed to financially constrain yourself to a particular system,” Barlow said. She then checked with VDOT and FHWA officials who agreed with her assessment. Unwanna Dabney, the FHWA representative on the MPO Policy Board, said the MPO met her agency’s basic requirements for showing fiscal constraint.

“That is the demonstration that a cumulative amount of funds are reasonably expected to be available over the 20 year timeframe [of the long range plan],” Dabney said. She said that some MPOs across the nation do break down the funding sources in their long-range plans, but that the goal of such documents is to serve as a planning document. Dabney also pointed out that much of the federal funding that comes to local communities comes through the SAFETEA-LU Act, which expires this year.

“It’s asking a bit much to constrain everything by program when we really have no idea what the next federal legislation [for transportation] is going to look like,” Dabney said.

OTHER NEWS:

This was the last meeting for Melissa Barlow, who will leave the MPO and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for a job with the Federal Transit Administration. The TJPDC’s new Executive Director, Steven Williams, has been officially certified as the Director of the MPO

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Meeting called to order by Vice Chair Satyendra Huja
• 01:20 – Public comment from Peter Kleeman regarding long range plan
• 04:46 – Public comment from John Pfaltz asking that the MPO tell the County that the Woodbrook be connected to the rest of the County’s transportation network so regional transit can work
• 06:54 – Adoption of minutes from May 2009 meeting
• 07:26 – Acting MPO Director Melissa Barlow notes that David Benish is Supervisor David Slutzky’s alternate for the purposes of a quorum
• 08:00 – MPO begins “fiscal constraint discussion”
• 16:30 – Presentation of Monticello High School CTS Survey
• 26:00 – Presentation of Southeastern Institute for Research’s RTA Toolkit
• 1:15:15 – Discussion of letter to support earlier schedule for AMTRAK Passenger Service
• 1:18:40 – Discussion of funding of further study of RTA by Frank Spielberg of VHB
• 1:28:45 – CHART Member Mac Lafferty reports on Bike Virginia

Judge Swett: Supermajority of votes not required for Meadowcreek Parkway easement

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, June 29, 2009

Judge Jay Swett of the Charlottesville Circuit Court has denied a claim made by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park that a City Council vote to convey property to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was unconstitutional. In an opinion dated June 26, 2009, Swett ruled the Virginia Constitution does not require four out of five Councilors to have approved the granting of temporary and permanent easements to VDOT in June 2008.  At that time, Council voted 3-2 to grant nearly 8.6 acres of land the City owns in Albemarle County to VDOT for construction, equipment storage and utility and drainage easements.

Download the presentation

Judge Swett’s ruling also denied an injunction requested by the Coalition to stop work on the Parkway, and also denied a request for the City to pay its legal fees. His ruling first gives a basic overview of Article VII, Section 9 of the 1971 Revised Virginia Constitution. The section contains two paragraphs, the first of which reads:

“No rights of a city or town in and to its waterfronts, wharf property, public landings, wharves, docks, streets, avenues, parks, bridges or other public places…  shall be sold except by an ordinance or resolution passed by an affirmed vote of three-fourths of all members elected to the governing body.”

The Virginia Supreme Court has only addressed this issue once, in Stending Development Corp. v Danville (1974). Swett writes in his opinion that that case is not helpful in shedding light in whether or not Council’s conveyance of land to VDOT is constitutional. Consequently, he says he is required to carefully examine the language used in the state Constitution.

“The framers’ choice of the term ‘sold’ should be given deference and the assumption is that the framers used this term for a specific purpose,” Swett writes. He then refers to the second part of Article VII, Section 9, which is a much longer paragraph which deals with special rights municipalities have to lease public property to other groups. For example, when Council granted a ground lease to the Piedmont Family YMCA in December 2007, this section restricted the terms of the lease to only 40 years.  Something to note is that Swett’s interpretation is that this second paragraph does not require a supermajority for such actions. Swett also writes that these two paragraphs must be taken together to interpret the intent of the Constitution’s framers:

“If the framers meant that any sale also included any lease, easement, or other encumbrance, then the framers would presumably would have chosen to add those words in addition to the reference of a sale,” Swett wrote in his opinion.

City Council voted 3-2 to grant the easement on June 2, 2008. Councilors Holly Edwards and Dave Norris voted against

The plaintiffs in the case had argued that transfer of land should be considered a sale because a sum of $43,120 was recorded as changing hands when the deed for the property was signed over to VDOT. At the May 2009 trial for the case, a representative from VDOT as well as Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris testified that figure was to reimburse the City and the Charlottesville School Board for landscape-screening and other related damages.

The plaintiffs had also argued that Article VII, Section 9 was designed to protect the public from having property it owns from being transferred for the benefit of private interests. Swett’s ruling details two competing interpretations of Section 9, and its precursor in the 1902 version of the Virginia Constitution. He then relates the work of constitutional scholar A.E. Dick Howard, who wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution that the framers intended for Section 9 to protect the public from elected officials who sold public land to private interests at lower than market value.

However, Swett said that interpretation did not fit in this case. He said that the City first turned consideration of the matter to a second elected body when it asked the Charlottesville School Board to vote on the easement in May 2008. That body voted 4-1 to grant the easements.  Swett also noted that the City will benefit by having a public road built and paid for by the Commonwealth of Virginia.

“It is difficult to see how this conveyance to VDOT by the City is within the category of evils which the framers of the Virginia Constitution had in mind when Section 9 of Article VII was considered,” Swett wrote.

Swett did rule that at least some of the plaintiffs in the case had legal standing to bring the case to trial in the first place. His ruling cited a Virginia Supreme Court decision to grant standing to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in a suit against tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris. Swett’s ruling states he could grant standing to those members of the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park who claimed that the Meadowcreek Parkway would cause them injury by damaging the park. Specifically, that granted Stratton Salidis, Peter Kleeman, City Council candidate Bob Fenwick, John Cruickshank standing in the case. That means they can likely appeal the decision. However, Swett found that the North Downtown Residents Association and Richard Collins did not allege “a sufficiently particularized injury” and thus cannot play a role in an appeal.

Arden Place site plan deferred; Woodbrook neighborhood vehemently against connectivity

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, June 25, 2009

The developer of the proposed 206-unit Arden Place “luxury” apartment complex off Rio Road has requested a deferral of its preliminary site plan application. The action came at the very end of the June 23, 2009 meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission after a majority of members indicated they would deny a waiver of the County’s requirement that all neighborhoods with more than 50 residential units connect to two public streets.

During the three-and-a-half hour discussion, thirty speakers from the Woodbrook subdivision told the Commission they wanted their neighborhood to continue to only have one entrance point off of U.S. Route 29 near Lowes. While some residents said they could accept a pedestrian trail on a County-owned right-of-way, the majority of speakers expressed concern that such a walkway would lead to additional crime and would alter the character of their neighborhood.

The Commission was asked by County Planner Gerald Gatobu to review five specific actions during their meeting: 

• Consideration of a critical slopes waiver
• Consideration of a waiver to disturb a buffer between commercial and residential areas on the applicant’s property
• Consideration of a waiver of County regulations requiring two entrance to public streets for residential complexes with more than 50 units
• Approval or denial of preliminary site plan
• Approval or denial of applicant’s dedication of open space to the County

The commercially zoned portion of the property has over 700 feet along Rio Road, but the preliminary site plan under review did not show an entrance coming through that section. Click for a larger image.

Charlottesville Realty Corporation, and the parcel currently has two zoning classifications on it. The applicant, Coleway Development, has an option to purchase the portion zoned R-15 for high-density residential development. If the site plan for Arden Place is approved by the County, Coleway will purchase the land. The remaining portion, which is zoned for commercial uses, will be subdivided and a site plan for that section will come before the County at some point in the future.

Gatobu said most of the critical slopes on the property are the result of fill created when Fashion Square Mall was constructed in the late 1970’s. It is easier to get a waiver for man-made critical slopes. Gatobu added that there are also natural critical slopes where the property abuts the Woodbrook neighborhood, but those would only be disturbed if a road were to be constructed there.  

The buffer disturbance issue relates to the fact that the property contains both R-15 and C-1 zoning classifications. Attorney Valerie Long, representing Coleway Development, said because the road will pass through both sections, the waiver is required to protect the residential section from disturbances made in the commercial section.

By-right, the developer could have built 170 units but sought a 5% density bonus from the County because of a commitment to preserve some of the wooded area and a 15% bonus because of a commitment to dedicate open-space to the County. The amount of units could have been higher if Coleway Development had proposed affordable housing units.

The waiver for the two-entrances requirement was the main cause of controversy. Gatobu said there were three potential access points. The site plan depicted one – a connection to Putt Putt Place. He said the developer had unsuccessfully negotiated with Dunbarton Properties, the owners of Albemarle Square, to obtain access through that commercial development. The third would be along the public right-of-way through Idlewood Drive in the Woodbrook neighborhood, but that the developer did not want to pursue that option. That right-of-way, owned by the County, has existed since the creation of the Woodbrook neighborhood in the 1960’s.

Instead, the developer proposed constructing a pedestrian walkway along the right-of-way, complete with a bridge to cross the stream that passes through the area. Because of that offer, the developer requested the waiver to allow vehicular access only through Putt Putt Place. Gatobu said staff recommended approval of the waiver with that condition. Additionally, Gatobu said that County fire and rescue officials were satisfied with the pathway if it could be built to allow for emergency access for public safety vehicles.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) asked if the applicant had considered a fourth option – building the second entrance on Rio Road through the commercial portion of the property. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Engineer Joel DeNunzio said there was room in that area to build a “right-in, right-out” entrance, but that VDOT’s access management standards did not consider another entrance to be desirable. He also said that if that option were proposed, VDOT would need to perform another traffic study. DeNunzio said VDOT preferred the Albemarle Square option.

The intersection with Putt Putt Place is problematic to both VDOT and County traffic engineers. DeNunzio said that even though a fully built-out Arden Place would generate an additional 1,250 vehicle trips a day, the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road would still not meet VDOT’s warrants to install a traffic signal.

County Transportation Engineer Amy Pflaum said that the traffic study did not include the Woodbrook intersection for two reasons. First, staff and the developer were both aware that the Woodbrook neighborhood was opposed to a vehicular connection. Second, preliminary traffic modeling showed that even if that connection were built, it would not alleviate the long delays that would be experienced by motorists seeking to turn left from Putt Putt Place onto East Rio Road.

Gatobu pointed out that even if a road were constructed along the public right-of-way, Woodbrook residents would have no guaranteed right to use it to travel south to Rio Road as both the Arden Place development and Putt Putt Place are private streets. 

Gatobu said he had met with Jim Plotkin of Dunbarton Properties, the owner of Albemarle Square. After looking at the site plan for Arden Place, Plotkin told him that denying the connection through Albemarle Square is “a business decision.” On the day of the hearing, Plotkin sent a letter to Gatobu  saying they wanted Coleway Development to construct a fence to block children from the Arden Place development from entering the Albemarle Square property.

ATTORNEY VALERIE LONG PRESENTS CASE FOR ARDEN PLACE

Valerie Long, an attorney with Williams Mullen, represented Coleway Development during the hearing. She said Arden Place was being designed as a “luxury” apartment complex offering market-rate rentals. She said the Places29 area lacked high-end rental housing and Arden Place would satisfy that demand. Long said residents would be able to walk to a large number of destinations including Fashion Square Mall, the Northside library, Woodbrook Elementary and numerous office buildings.

Attorney Valerie Long addresses the Planning Commission

“We really think it’s a perfect fit for this area and obviously the zoning contemplates this use,” Long said.
Long said the developer did not have the legal right to make the connection to Albemarle Square, but that they would continue to pursue negotiations with Dunbarton Properties. Long said Albemarle Square would need to relocate some parking spaces in order to accommodate the connection. Long also said that her client did not want to build a road connecting to the Woodbrook neighborhood because it would cause too much of an impact on a stream.

“Strict application of the two-vehicular connection requirement would result in significant degradation of the site and adjacent properties,” Long said. “We think it would be a different story if the Woodbrook community were just being platted and there weren’t any people living there now.”

Long said her client was willing to conduct additional traffic studies, and would be willing to explore a second connection to Rio Road if the Commission did not grant the waiver.

After Commissioner Tom Loach (White Hall) pointed out that the Putt Putt Place already has a failing intersection for those seeking to turn left, Long said the developer will have an incentive to work out the transportation issues so that people will want to live in Arden Place.

“If [residents] feel it’s not a safe entrance, they won’t want to live there,” Long said. “So there’s a built-in incentive on the part of the applicant to make sure that it’s going to work.”

PUBLIC COMMENT OVERWHELMINGLY AGAINST INTERCONNECTIVITY

Thirty people spoke during the public comment period. The first speaker, John Gallagher, captured the general spirit of the audience when he said he was not opposed to the development, but did not want to be connected to it.  Another speaker, Charlie Trachta, said that crime from outsiders is already rampant and would only get worse if people could easily walk to the neighborhood. Bill Nuckols said he could see no advantage to having pedestrian access to Rio Road. Mike Mueller said he was opposed to the walking trail because it would bring strangers into his community.

“I moved to Woodbrook because it was a nice neighborhood,” Mueller said. “If you open it up to the shopping center and the apartment complex then it becomes the neighborhood recreational facility with people from ACAC running laps around our neighborhood. I don’t know those people.”

Some Woodbrook residents did support the pedestrian pathway. Steven Wilson said that while he was concerned about the potential for crime, he supported the County’s goals for connectivity and thought children in the Arden Place neighborhood could at least walk to Woodbrook Elementary School.

Many of the residents spoke to a greater sense of their residential neighborhood being affected by the growing urbanization of Albemarle County. Ann Hobson has lived in Woodbrook for 39 years, but now her son wants her to move elsewhere because he thinks U.S. 29 is too dangerous.

Kathy Welch said she had originally planned to support the applicant’s request for the waiver until she heard Long acknowledge that the applicant had not sought to build a second entrance onto Rio Road. Instead, she asked for a denial of the waiver because the site plan was “too preliminary.”

“Tell them to start over because they haven’t even considered using their own property as an access way,” Welch said.

On the subject of the public right-of-way, Jeff Deal said he believed that land was platted decades ago at a time when Albemarle County was not as developed. He said U.S. 29 was narrower and Rio Road was not a major arterial. He said if his community had sidewalks, it would make sense to connect to Arden Place.

COMMISSION CONSIDERS THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION

After the public comment period concluded, Commissioner Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) immediately said that the Commission had the power to deny all the waivers. He called the preliminary site plan application “an ill-conceived proposal” and suggested the applicant start again.

Commissioner Tom Loach (White Hall) said he generally supports interconnectivity, but that it has to be on an equal basis. He did say he could support the pedestrian trail, because he did not see it as a threat to the neighborhood. However, he said the entrance of Putt Putt Place onto Rio did not pass his own safety test so he could not support the waiver of the two-entrance requirements.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) said she also supported interconnectivity, but she was convinced that Woodbrook would not benefit in this case. She suggested the applicant develop a direct entrance onto Rio Road before coming back to the Commission.

Commissioner Linda Porterfield (Scottsville) said she understood that having the second entrance onto Rio Road would not solve the traffic conditions, but at least it would give drivers leaving Arden Place a choice.

Chairman Eric Strucko (Samuel Miller) said he thought the develop needed two entrances, but said he was concerned that if the waiver is not granted, the developer might have the ability to build the road anyway. Bill Fritz, the County’s Chief of Current Development, said the Commission could still determine the “location and design and number of entrances.”

Strucko, a staunch supporter of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, said he entered the meeting trying to hold fast to interconnectivity but that he had been convinced by the overwhelming public opinion against both the road connection and the pedestrian connection.

The Commission spent several minutes debating potential options for where the second entrance should be. Edgerton called on his Commissioner to stop redesigning the project and to simply vote to deny the waivers.

“I would love to see our development area develop at the density that the zoning calls for, but not in a bad way,” Edgerton said. “If we grant waivers to help them do this, we’re working against the community.”
With a denial of the waiver for two-entrances looming, various Commissioners repeatedly asked Long if her client was willing to ask for a deferral. Long said she would prefer to move forward with the critical slopes waiver and the buffer-disturbance waiver, and then come back with a site plan showing a second entrance.

Porterfield said she was uncomfortable approving any waivers for a preliminary site plan she hadn’t yet seen. Commissioner Don Franco (Rio) agreed and said the applicant should take feedback from this meeting and return in the future with a revised plan.

In the end, five Commissioners expressed their opposition to the pedestrian trail. Without the pedestrian trail, the residential density allowed at Arden Place would be lower because it would no longer qualify for a 15% density bonus.

Porterfield said she thought one benefit would be that children from Arden Place could walk to school at Woodbrook Elementary School, rather than have to travel onto Rio Road and U.S. 29.

Long said her client was disappointed in the conclusion on the pedestrian committee trail.

“When we met with planning staff, they made the comments about that the fact that it would connect multiple neighborhoods within the designated development areas from one set of public roads to another,” Long said. “It facilitates walkability and exercise and open space and all of those things…. We’re very respectful of the neighborhood’s comments about not wanting people walking, but there is a public elementary school in the middle of their neighborhood.”

Long said because the land is already zoned R-15, it is costing the developer more to purchase so that is why they are pursing the bonus density. Strucko said he could appreciate that, but that the additional units would place additional burdens on the community’s infrastructure.

“We have to weigh the benefit of those additional 30 units and the traffic they generate on Rio Road versus the availability of this green space,” Strucko said.

DeNunzio said it would take VDOT at least 30 days to review a new preliminary site plan once it is received.

Franco encouraged the developer to seek another way to obtain the density bonuses, possibly by making off-site road improvements.

Andrew McGinty with Coleway Development said  that another way to get the bonus density would be to convert the project to a 100% affordable housing project, but that might be his only option.

Andrew McGinty with Coleway Development

“Based on what I’ve heard [at this meeting], I can’t make a luxury product work here,” McGinty said. Instead, he might consider applying for tax credits through the Virginia Housing Development Authority and returning with a fully by-right development with 220 units.  He could do so by eliminating all open space and without preserving the woods.

“I am under a tremendous amount of pressure from my partners to not even try to do a luxury product,” McGinty said. “There’s absolutely no risk in doing more tax credit apartments on this site. A new community there would lease up instantly. All the tenants in the existing [nearby] communities would move over to the new one.”

Strucko said he acknowledged McGinty’s property rights, but that the Commission was charged with weighing the community’s greater interests versus the developers.

Edgerton grew impatient and asked to call the question on a motion to recommend denial of the waivers and the preliminary site plan application. With that, McGinty called for a deferral. The Commission voted to accept the deferral, and the preliminary site plan application will come before the Commission at a later date.

County Planning Commission continues Places29 discussion; Free Enterprise Forum’s Williamson softens criticism

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

At their meeting on June 16, 2009, the Albemarle County Planning Commission continued reviewing the Places29 Master Plan with further discussion of how future land use decisions will be shaped by the plan. Staff presented design guidelines for how buildings and properties should be developed along major roads and gave further detail about land use goals in the various “centers” called for in the plan.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090616-APC-Places29

The work session covered Chapter 4 and Chapter 7. For this work session, County Senior Planner Elaine Echols said staff wanted feedback on how buildings should be placed in connection with roads (frontage conditions), as well as what kinds of boundaries should be placed between different place-types.

“[Frontage conditions are] a very important part of the plan because when the [Architectural Review Board] reviews projects on the Entrance Corridors, they really need some guidance on what [the Place29 Master] Plan’s expectations are for that road,” Echols said. “How should the buildings be oriented? Where should sidewalks be? Where should street trees be?”

The Commission reviewed five frontage types:

• Urban frontage: Designed to promote buildings that are close to streets and “higher level of pedestrian activity,” according to Echols. Buildings would face the street.
• Landscaped development yard frontage: Designed as a temporary solution for suburban-style parking lots that are currently the existing condition in many sections of U.S. 29. This type provides guidance on how to create buffers between those lots and the street through plantings
• Landscaped residential yard frontage: This type would be rare, given that very few homes are on U.S. 29 in the Places29 area. It would mostly apply to other entrance corridors in the Places29 area, such as Rio Road
• Open landscape frontage: Designed to preserve existing views of river valleys and fields. Echols said a goal of the County is to preserve a visual break between the southern and northern sections of the Places29 area.
• Forested buffer frontage:  This type is meant to preserve the rural stretch between Hollymead and Polo Grounds Road, requiring an 80 to 100 feet deep buffer of forest.

Wiegand showed this conceptual image as an example of how the urban frontage condition would look, with buildings oriented close to the street

Ex Officio Commissioner Julia Monteith (University of Virginia) asked how realistic it would be to expect the urban frontage condition on U.S. 29. She asked if that would involve traffic calming to slow down vehicles so that café patrons could enjoy their meal. Echols responded that some approved developments, such as Albemarle Place, already include urban frontage in their site plans. Senior Planner Judy Wiegand said the expectation is that buildings will be built up to the road, but that pedestrians will likely spend more of their time on parallel and perpendicular roads as they travel to the future neighborhood centers. Wiegand said the pedestrian traffic at Albemarle Place is generally expected to be internal to the development.

Commissioner Marcia Joseph (At-Large) said she thought that 80 to 100 feet was too deep for a forested buffer. She said land in the growth area was too expensive and it was too unrealistic to expect developers to use that much of their land for a buffer. But Commissioner Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) said that the community had clearly expressed a desire to preserve the forested areas on U.S. 29 and he defended the depth called for in the forest buffer frontage condition..

“They put a lot of pressure early on in the [Places29] process that these residential communities not be really part of this plan,” Edgerton said. “I think it’s safe to say that this plan has responded to that.” He reminded the Commission that the idea of a parallel road on the eastern side of U.S. 29, the Northern Free State Road, was removed due to opposition.

Echols said she would bring back more specific descriptions in order to address the concerns expressed by Joseph and others.    

During the public comment period, Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum said he thought the urban frontage condition should not apply to Airport Road, given that the area contains a lot of the County’s remaining parcels of land zoned for light industrial uses. Williamson said he had a hard time envisioning the area being redeveloped with restaurants, shops and other retail uses.

Echols explained that the area around Airport Road is being planned as the “Uptown” for the Places29 area. She said she thought airport employees would walk to those restaurants.

“We wouldn’t want to have along that entrance corridor just a strict industrial look,” Echols said.
Echols also asked for the Commission’s opinion on how to manage boundaries between the urban and rural portions of the Places29 area. “The Neighborhood Model suggests that we should have a hard boundary between the development areas the rural area,” Echols said. That means that there would be no transition zone because that would mean land would not be as developed at the density called for in the Master Plan. One reason why this is relevant is because West Rio Road marks the boundary between the two areas and large portions of it are expected to be developed or redeveloped in the coming years.

As with frontage conditions, there are six suggested boundary conditions:

• Urban-Developed – would allow for dense residential with minimal or no setbacks, small yards and fewer landscape elements
• Urban-Landscaped – less dense development with deeper setbacks. An example would be the way Agnor-Hurt Elementary School is oriented to Berkmar Drive
• Rural Residential – an example would be one side of Pritchett Lane. The side of the road facing the North Pointe development will not be redeveloped, but will remain with a rural character
• Rural Fields – Only minimal development would be allowed in these area, such as individual buildings. The undeveloped grasslands on Hydraulic Road near Albemarle High School are one example of this existing condition.
• Rural Forested - Only minimal development would be allowed in these area, such as individual buildings.
• Riparian /Floodplain – Some boundaries are rivers and floodplains such as the areas that abut the Rivanna River

COMMISSION REVISITS LAND USE TABLES

On March 31, 2009, the Commission held a previous work session on Chapter 4, which deals with land uses in the various center types that will be defined in the Places29 Plan. Senior Planner Judy Wiegand said she had further revised five items based on Commissioner comments from that meeting:

• Commission had been concerned about the suggested mix of uses in multi-story buildings as well as whether enough parking would be made available.
• Commission recommended each “center” have 10% set aside for open space.
• Commission recommended mixed uses be “maximized” so services are close to where people live.
• Commission sought more information on whether two-story grocery stores might be possible.
• Commission wanted to see more ways to discourage retail centers from being developed the same way they are today, with large parking lots fronting the road. In particular, the Commission wanted to stop “suburban style” centers.

On that last point, Wiegand said much of the way to discourage such development would come in the form of design guidelines that will be included in an appendix to Places29. She said the County’s comprehensive plan already relies on the use of the Neighborhood Model in the growth area.

Wiegand showed this as an example of how a "destination center" might look. The "uptown" area is being slated as one of these place types

We’re looking to make sure that these centers are more densely developed and walkable,” Wiegand said. “That will help avoid the suburban style if [developers] will come in and concentrate the buildings and the parking and the open space… We have these centers oriented towards parallel and perpendicular streets so they can be more walkable and a suburban style is not going to be attractive in those locations.” Interconnectivity is also being encouraged so that people can walk between and within centers.

On the topic of two-story grocery stores, Wiegand said she doubted whether any developer would be willing to build such a structure in the near future given the current lack of density. However, Commissioner Cal Morris (Rivanna) noted that he has recently seen a grocery store in Chester, Virginia that offers restaurant-seating on the second floor.

Commissioner Don Franco (Rio) said he remained skeptical that neighborhood service centers would realistically develop the way County planners envisioned. Using the Westfield area as an example, Franco said if redevelopment occurs with multiple owners, there could be a lack of coordination that could prevent “meaningful open space” from being reserved. He said he could see a situation where developers are forced to buy up an entire street to carry out the County’s goals. 

County Planner Echols said the Places29 narrative acknowledges that large areas of open-space will be hard to achieve if neighborhood centers are developed on a parcel-by-parcel basis. However, she said developers may have the 10% requirement waived or reduced if their property is within walking distance of a County park.

“We’re trying to accommodate those concerns realizing that redevelopment could come in as one small parcel, [or] it could come in as several parcels being redeveloped together,” Echols said.

During the public comment period for Chapter 4, Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum warned that sales tax revenue would decline if retail stores move out to surrounding counties in order to avoid the various requirements called for in Places29.

Free Enterprise Forum’s Williamson softens statement on recent report

Neil Williamson

At the beginning of the meeting, Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum read a statement that defended his organization’s recent “Reality Check Report” but also recognized that the use of the word “deceitful” in its accompanying press release was out of line. He said his group continued to encourage the Planning Commission to use inflation-adjusted figures in calculating cost estimates, rather than current-year figures. “While disagreeing vehemently with that approach, the Free Enterprise Forum regrets what was an inartful characterization of it,” Williamson said. “The Free Enterprise Forum recognizes there are positive elements to the Places29 plan. [We] will never shy away from highlighting policy disagreements with the [Planning Commission] or any other governmental entity.”

At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Don Franco read a statement indicating that he resigned from the Board of Directors for both the Free Enterprise Forum and the Blue Ridge Home Builder’s Association when he joined the Commission. 

“I stepped back from my leadership role in these organizations because of the required time commitments and to help ensure that as a Planning Commissioner I was equally accessible to all citizens,” Franco said. He said he continued to support the goals of the Free Enterprise Forum, but stood by the Planning Commission’s decision to use current year dollars to calculate cost estimates for the transportation components of the Places29 Master Plan.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum reads a statement
• 04:50 – Planning Commission Chairman Eric Strucko introduces work session
• 08:52 – County Planner Elaine Echols describes the “urban frontage” type
• 11:08 – Echols describes the “landscaped development” type
• 12:45 – Echols describes the “landscaped residential yard” type
• 13:30 – Echols describes the “open landscape” and “forested buffer” types
• 15:40 – Echols begins conversation about the need to create boundaries between rural and urban areas
• 18:00 – Echols describes “urban-developed” boundary condition
• 18:52 - Echols describes “urban-landscaped” boundary condition
• 19:23 - Echols describes “rural-residential” boundary condition
• 21:00 – Commissioner Tom Loach asks how boundaries would be maintained
• 22:45 – Loach asks question about multi-use paths shown next to grade-separated interchanges
• 24:15 – Julia Monteith asks a question about how realistic the urban frontage condition actually is
• 25:10 – Monteith also asks what happens to transitional conditions in the long run.
• 26:00 – Echols and Judy Wiegand respond to Monteith
• 29:20 – Commissioner Marcia Joseph says she does not support a forested buffer of 80 to 100 feet because land is expensive
• 34:10 – Joseph asks question about setbacks for parking
• 37:00 – Loach commented that it is a good idea to further distance cyclists from U.S. 29 as the speed of the roadway increases
• 38:20 – Franco agrees with Joseph that the forested buffer of 80 to 100 feet is too deep
• 45:30 – Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum expresses concern about the urban frontage condition applying to the Airport Road area, followed by a discussion of his concern
• 52:00 – Commission switches to discussion of Chapter 4
• 52:50 – Wiegand lists the Commission’s concerns from March 13 work session
• 53:50 – Wiegand addresses issue #2: open space in centers
• 55:30 – Wiegand addresses issue #3: maximizing mixed use
• 56:30 – Wiegand addresses issue #4: whether grocery stores can be two-story; she doubts it
• 58:00 – Wiegand addresses issue #5: how to avoid duplicating existing conditions
• 59:30 – Wiegand addresses issue #1: concerns with parking in multiple story buildings; Wiegand than shows slides of other what other center types may look like
• 1:10:30 – Wiegand discusses parking requirements for different building footprints
• 1:17:00 – Commissioner Marcia Joseph asks about the definition of a “flex” building
• 1:19:20 – Joseph asks question about impacts of heavy industrial
• 1:21:00 – Joseph makes comment about potential restrictions on moving companies
• 1:22:15 – Commissioner Cal Morris gives Virginia example of a two-story grocery store
• 1:24:30 – Commissioner Don Franco says he remains concerned about how retail service centers will work
• 1:26:30 – Commissioner Bill Edgerton (Jack Jouett) makes comment about multi-story buildings and parking
• 1:28:20 – Echols responds to Franco’s concern
• 1:30:00 – Julia Monteith raises a concern about using the potential redevelopment of Shopper’s World Plaza as an example of developing green space
• 1:32:00 – Neil Williamson hands out sheet with sales tax revenue handed out by Chamber of Commerce
• 1:36:00 – Strucko addresses Williamson’s comments
• 1:37:00 – Joseph asks a question about mixing retail and light industrial uses
• 1:42:00 – Franco comments about his former position as a Board member for the Free Enterprise Forum

New 206-unit apartment complex raises interconnectivity concerns with Woodbrook neighbors

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, June 22, 2009

One of the goals of the Places29 Master Plan is to encourage greater housing density in Albemarle County’s growth area. One way to achieve that goal is through in-fill development on empty parcels of land. However, the reality may be that some of the plans will be hard to implement due to a lack of cooperation between adjoining property owners, fears from existing residential neighborhoods, as well as County regulations designed to ensure that the transportation infrastructure can support the additional density.

Location map for the proposed Arden Place development. The arrows in blue indicate sites for possible road connections.

On Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the Albemarle County Planning Commission will take up a preliminary site plan for a 206-unit by-right multifamily apartment complex called Arden Place. The property is located off of Rio Road and Putt Putt Place and is being developed by Coleway Development for the Charlottesville Realty Corporation.  The project does requires a critical slopes waiver as well as a waiver to disturb an existing buffer between the property and the Woodbrook neighborhood. On the surface, it would seem that the development is in keeping with the spirit of Places29. Because of appropriate efforts to mitigate impacts, staff has recommended approval of the two waivers.

However, even with the waivers, County staff initially recommended that the Planning Commission deny the preliminary site plan application because the developer cannot currently build a second road to support the complex. County regulations require that an apartment complex with over 50 residential units have at least two vehicular connections to public streets.

County Engineer Glenn Brooks wrote in a May 1, 2009 review that building only one vehicular entrance at Putt Putt Lane and Rio Road would not be enough to support the development. In particular, those seeking to turn left from Putt Putt Place onto Rio Road will experience long delays. However, Brooks also noted in his letter that the intersection did not yet meet the minimum guidelines for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to build a traffic signal. Additionally, Brooks said the development would further congest the intersection of Rio Road and U.S. Route 29, as well as the intersection of Putt Putt Place and Rio Road.

Download County Engineer Glenn Brooks' May 1, 2009 letter (.PDF)

However, Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner intervened in the review late last week with a June 18, 2009 letter which states that the County lacks the authority to deny a site plan based on anticipated off-site transportation impacts.. Since then, the developer has asked for a waiver of the County regulations that require two vehicular connections. Instead, of a vehicular connection to Woodbrook, the developer is proposing to build a pedestrian path connecting to a strip of property owned by the County, a public right-of-way which was intended for future neighborhood connectivity. This would allow pedestrian and bicycle traffic between Arden Place and Mallside Forest Apartments to the Woodbrook neighborhood, location of the neighborhood elementary school. In an updated staff report, County Planner Gerald Gotubu recommended approval of this waiver.

Download Deputy County Attorney Greg Kamptner's letter

Additionally, the developer is also in negotiations with the owners of the Albemarle Square commercial development to build the second road connection near the former Circuit City building. This would allow traffic to reach Rio Road via the traffic light for Albemarle Square. However, negotiations have not yet been successful.

With seemingly reluctant support of the site plan, County staff continues to warn against the traffic impacts Arden Place will have on Rio Road.

“Without a signal, and anticipating normal growth as well as the addition of the Arden Place development, in  approximately 5 years the expected delay for a vehicle attempting to turn left from Putt Putt Place onto Rio Road East will be over 19 minutes,” the amended report states. “Without the Arden Place development, this delay would be 7.3 minutes.” The report goes on to say that if the connection to Albemarle Square could be constructed, the wait would be only 5 minutes.

As the site plan evolved, residents of the Woodbrook neighborhood mobilized to take action to oppose the connection of a public street through their neighborhood. They created their own blog to monitor the situation and will be on hand for the Planning Commission’s meeting this week to provide input. 

City Council defers temporary parking permits for residents near new Onesty Pool

Charlottesville Tomorrow
By Julia Glendening
Friday, June 19, 2009

Onesty Family Aquatic Center opens June 20, 2009

On June 15, 2009, City Council deferred the establishment of a permit parking zone near the new Onesty Family Aquatic Center in Meade Park. The Onesty Pool opens on Saturday, June 20 and some residents have expressed concern that the neighborhood will lose parking spots due to overflow parking from a large number of visitors. The press release announcing the center’s opening warned that the pool will exceed capacity in its inaugural weeks.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-onesty-parking

City staff held a community meeting on June 4 to discuss possible options to maintain parking for residents in the area. The residents decided zone permit parking would be their preferred option, however, by a 3-1 vote, City Council deferred the issue until their next meeting on July 6 to examine the parking problem after the pool has opened.

The Onesty Pool will have an area of 62,000 square feet, which would require a private developer to provide 104 parking spaces. However, the Planning Commission granted a waiver on September 9, 2008 to reduce the number of parking spaces to 38. Jeanie Alexander, the City of Charlottesville's Traffic Engineer, said the Parks and Recreation Department will shuttle employees from City parking lots in order to reduce parking spaces used by employees. Alexander also confirmed there are bicycle racks and there was a revision to the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) route 1A, so a bus will directly access the pool.

“We’re trying to decrease the dependence on the automobile and increase transit, walking,” said Alexander.

Alexander said there are potentially 25 parking spaces along roads adjacent to the property, making a total of about 60 available spaces to pool users. The pool’s maximum occupancy is 255 and residents of the area voiced their opinion about the large amount of street parking which could be taken by pool patrons. At the June 4 meeting, the citizens requested the implementation of zone permit parking on streets next to the Onesty Pool to reserve some spaces for residents.

City staff recommended City Council approve a trial period of a year for the parking permits. At the time of the Council’s consideration, the areas under consideration for parking permits were:
Chesapeake Street from Meade Avenue to Fairway Avenue

• 200-320 Meade Avenue
• East Jefferson Street from 12th Street (southern leg) to Meade Avenue
• 13th Street between East Jefferson Street and Little High Street
• Little High Street from 13th Street to Meade Avenue

During the trial period, the permits would be free of charge. Usually the permits cost $25 each for residents with driveways. If a household does not have a driveway, it is eligible for two free permits. The permit would be required from 10 AM to 8 PM during the pool season and signs would be installed to indicate permit parking locations.

The Onesty Pool parking lot has 25 available spaces for visitors

Councilor David Brown said he was unsure about trying to solve a problem before it was documented. He acknowledged there might be problems for residents who do not have driveways, therefore requiring them to find a parking spot on the street.

“I’m frankly somewhat uneasy about solving a problem before we know it exists,” said Brown. He said he felt this was a preemptive complaint by the residents and the Council should wait to go through the usual permit zone process after the pool opens.

Alexander did not know the percentage of residents without driveways, but said the area does have some houses without driveways. She reiterated this would be a trial year for the permits and the Council could examine the issue again throughout the pool season.

Mayor Dave Norris said he approved of the trial parking permits because the residents of the neighborhood decided on this solution and believed numerous people will use the pool, especially in the opening season.

“We sort of created a monster here because [the pool] is going to be such a beautiful facility and I think people are going to want to flock to this facility,” Norris said. “It wasn’t necessarily intentioned as a regional facility.”

Brown recommended the Council discuss the issue during their July meeting in order to observe any parking problems during the first month and then possibly approve the trial period for the permits. Councilor Julian Taliaferro agreed that he would rather wait to hear complaints before creating a permit zone.

The Onesty pool was compared to the Washington Park pool, which has a greater maximum occupancy of 300 and fewer parking spaces, about 24 or 26. Alexander said there have been no complaints in this area.

The Council voted 3-1 to defer the application of trial parking permits in the Onesty pool area and will be reviewed on July 6.

During the same discussion, Norris said he was concerned about the future of the farmer’s market currently located in Meade Park. Brian Daly, Acting Parks and Recreation Director, assured him that the market would still be located in Meade Park and said it would have a maximum of 25 vendors, a similar amount to this past year. Daly said the pool would close at 2 PM on Wednesdays in order to keep the market in the same location, but the market might also affect parking in the area.

“Throughout the master planning process for Meade Park, it was very evident among the members of the community and the neighbors that they loved the farmer’s market and wanted to keep it,” said Daly.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 - Dave Norris introduces
• 01:13 - Jeanie Alexander presents background information
• 04:17 - Norris clarifies number of spaces
• 05:45 - Satyendra Huja asks about bicycle racks
• 06:05 - David Brown comments on whether problem exists
• 11:12 - Julian Taliaferro asks about Washington Park
• 11:18 - Norris asks questions about logistics of permits
• 12:38 - Norris begins discussion on farmer's market
• 15:45 - Huja asks whether permits can be postponed
• 17:40 - Brown recommends discussing the issue in July
• 22:10 - Brown motions to defer issue

Charlottesville Transit to offer monthly passes; Norris asks for annual pass

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, June 18, 2009

Frequent riders of the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) currently have the option of paying 75 cents each time they board, or buying a book of 40 tickets for $21. While there are discounted fares are available for senior citizens and the disabled, there are currently no monthly or yearly passes.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-CC-CTS

CTS Director Bill Watterson

On June 15, 2009, CTS Director Bill Watterson appeared before Council for permission to eliminate the ticket books in favor of a monthly pass that would cost $20, with a discounted price of $10 for those who qualify. He said doing so would increase ridership by making it easier for people to board a CTS bus. This year, ridership will approach 2 million according to Watterson. As of the end of May, over 1.8 million people rode CTS buses in the fiscal year that ends on June 30, 2009. That compares to 1.7 million for all of the previous year. 

He gives the credit for that milestone to the ability of University of Virginia students, faculty and staff to ride fare-free.

“[The University does] pay us, but we don’t collect at the fare-box and that makes a difference in terms of ridership,” Watterson said. UVA provided $134,000 for this year, and will raise the contribution to $138,000 for FY2010.

“We want to use what we’ve been learning to do even better in the future. And one of the things that we’ve learned is that when you set up an arrangement where people don’t have to think about paying… they’ll ride more.”

For riders paying on a day by day basis, Watterson also suggested eliminating the transfer slips in favor a daily pass. Currently, anyone who switches bus lines to get to their destination must ask the driver for a transfer slip to show they have already paid to board the bus that day. Watterson suggested reducing the cost of a daily pass in half to $1.50, which would effectively be the cost of a round trip.

Mayor Dave Norris asked if a yearly pass would be possible. Watterson said the market for such a pass would be “fairly limited” because many people wouldn’t want to spend around $240 all at once.

“We are a fairly transient community, and many of the folks that might be interested in something like that are already getting a fare-free arrangement through the University of Virginia,” Watterson said. He said he would be happy to experiment with a yearly pass once the monthly pass is implemented.

Councilor David Brown asked if the monthly pass would be an ID card, or if would be something that would be read at the fare box. Watterson said CTS lacks the technology to allow for swiping a card, but that it may implement such a system in the future.

“The reason we don’t have smart fare boxes is because we’ve been using fairly low tech ways of selling our service and this might be an entrée into the future,” Watterson said.  

Council voted 4-0 to support the change. The fare changes will go into effect on August 22, 2009.

Alliance of Neighborhoods forum discusses traffic management issues throughout the City and County

Charlottesville Tomorrow
By Julia Glendening
Thursday, June 18, 2009

Alliance of Neighborhoods forum

The Alliance of Neighborhoods (AoN) held a forum on June 16, 2009 to discuss the management of neighborhood traffic issues within Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Jeanie Alexander, the City of Charlottesville's Traffic Engineer, and Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner for Albemarle County, answered questions from neighborhood association representatives and local citizens. They walked the audience through the process of how to solve a traffic problem and gave examples of tactics that were both successful and unsuccessful. While citizens expressed their concern with fixing the overall traffic system, both Alexander and Wade said fixing large-scale traffic problems will progress slowly due to funding.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090616-AoN-forum

Victoria Dunham, Vice-President of AoN, moderated the forum and began the discussion with a question on the political process citizens should follow when they observe a traffic problem in their neighborhood.

Alexander outlined the City process specifically with speeding problems, which starts when citizens tell her directly about a problem. That is followed by data collection by City staff, and then an informational meeting in which citizens are shown the City’s plans for mitigation. Ballots listing the proposed solutions are then sent out to residents. If more than half of residents respond, and over 66% are in favor, the City will go ahead with the plan if funds can be allocated to the project.

Wade described the County’s process as similar and said the Board of Supervisors must ultimately approve every county traffic management plan. He emphasized how traffic calming is not expensive, but the planning process required for County roads by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is extremely lengthy.

Alexander described options that are available for traffic management issues, such as speed humps, speed cushions, bike lanes, extending curbsides, and building medians. Some members of the audience were interested in narrowing streets to calm traffic, but Alexander informed the audience that narrowing roads is one of the most expensive options.

“Cost to [narrow streets] is probably more expensive than any of the other traffic calming things because then you really get into some drainage issues if you start messing with your pavement and your curb line and property line issues get a little more complicated,” said Alexander.

Jeanie Alexander (left) and Juandiego Wade (right)

She also clarified the difference between traffic calming and traffic control. Traffic calming is a self-imposed modification that is voted on by the residents and includes devices such as speed humps. Traffic control includes stop signs and stop lights that can be enforced by police. Alexander said traffic calming solutions are used when speeding is the issue because it forces traffic to slow down, whereas people might not stop for a stop sign.

One citizen said he was concerned the City was only making a quick fix with traffic calming solutions.

“I’ve always felt that traffic calming is kind of a Band Aid on a symptom,” he said. “Maybe the problem is that there’s a bigger issue where the whole transportation system needs to be looked at.”

Wade responded by saying the County and the City work together to enhance interconnectivity and each problem has to be examined individually. He described the work as “ongoing” and said “each little bit helps.”

“In my role traffic, calming is something I can do. I can be part of the conversation, but the bigger issue that’s creating a lot of this problem is something to remedy over time,” said Alexander who agreed with the citizen’s assessment.

The citizen voiced his worry that with growth, traffic will fill up main roads and spill over into local roads. He said traffic calming devices on local roads will make congestion worse and traffic will continuously be pushed into new areas, unless the City’s and County’s entire traffic grid is examined.

Alexander and Wade answered further questions about traffic studies and stressed the importance of communication between residents, neighborhood association representatives, and local governments. They both described traffic problems which have been hindered by neighborhood disagreements and they recommended resident discussion should occur before a traffic complaint is filed. Dunham finished the forum by commenting on the importance of citizen involvement from the beginning of an issue and how residents are able to make changes throughout their neighborhood.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:10 Victoria Dunham introduces speakers
• 02:22 Juandiego Wade gives background information about himself
• 03:55 Jeanie Alexander talks about her background
• 08:37 Wade outlines County process for traffic management
• 14:30 Alexander outlines City process for traffic management
• 18:07 Question about alternatives to speed humps
• 18:40 Question about definition of collector streets
• 19:08 Question about areas with large student population
• 22:40 Question about making roads narrower to calm traffic
• 24:58 Comment on poor sight lines and question about enforcement involvement
• 26:55 Question about how to slow people on curves
• 29:30 Alexander defines traffic calming vs. traffic control
• 31:15 Alexander finishes City process
• 33:33 Question about how to alleviate an increase in the flow of traffic
• 35:23 Wade comments on how County and City work together
• 36:20 Question on VDOT process and funding
• 38:36 Question about the role of the Board of Supervisors in traffic management
• 43:05 Question about traffic calming eligibility
• 44:20 Question from citizen near Fontana Drive about traffic flowing into one subdivision
• 50:45 Dunham asks what the people of Fontana neighborhood can do
• 55:55 Citizen comment on the inability to talk about other possibilities at informational meetings
• 1:02:10 Question about whether traffic calming devices are removed if ineffectual
• 1:03:10 Question about emergency vehicles and traffic calming
• 1:05:00 Question about pedestrian possibilities at the W. Market intersection and High Street
• 1:08:55 Citizen comments on the inability of the City to fix the overall traffic problem
• 1:21:10 Question about when the impact of a solution is studied
• 1:32:10 Dunham talks about the importance of volunteerism

Council updated on three Meadowcreek Parkway projects

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The three components that make up the future Meadowcreek Parkway are all at various stages in the development process. While Albemarle County’s portion is under construction, the two elements to be built in Charlottesville are still in the planning process. All are scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2012. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-CC-MCP

An October 2008 drawing of the selected interchange design. Click for a larger view.

The City's Urban Construction Initiative Planner, Jeanette Janiczek, gave an update to Council at their meeting on June 15, 2009. She listed the various steps through which both McIntire Road Extended and the Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange must pass before construction can get underway.

Janiczek said the County’s portion of the Meadowcreek Parkway began in January and is on schedule to be completed by October of 2011. Janiczek reminded Council that this portion of the road will not open until the two elements in the City are complete, with the exception of a three-week window where traffic will be routed along the alignment while its connection to East Rio Road is built.

Two items, Janiczek reported, need to be cleared up before the City’s portion of the Parkway, known as McIntire Road Extended, can be advertised for bids. The first is the resolution of the Section 106 process. That is the federally-mandated procedure where a road that will affect historic assets must be evaluated so that steps can be taken to mitigate those impacts.

“The scope of the project has been identified, the historic resources have been identified within that, and it looks like there’s an agreement that McIntire Park is the only affected historic resource,” Janiczek said. The Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies are currently working with the City of Charlottesville to develop a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) which will outline the steps that need to be taken to address the impact on the park.  Janiczek said the MOU would be available “shortly” but if that doesn’t happen, the project could be pushed back.

The second item is the acquisition of a parcel of land that is currently under the control of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Negotiations are ongoing to coordinate the relocation of a utility easement for the Schenk’s Branch Interceptor with the road’s construction.

Janiczek said it would take a year to build the City’s portion as soon as the project is advertised and bids come back.

The Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange has several steps that must be completed before it can be advertised for bids. In August 2008, Council selected a grade-separated “signalized diamond” interchange as its preferred option, and Janiczek said that design is now 30% complete. That means that the actual locations of the various ramps are being oriented, and the environmental assessment documents are being updated as a result.

A design public hearing for the interchange is scheduled for late summer. Council will need to approve the final design when it is complete, and then right-of-way acquisition can begin. Janiczek said there may be as many as nine parcels of land that must be acquired to accommodate the interchange.

“Of these properties, if we assess the property, make a fair offer, and negotiations don’t reach a successful conclusion, then we may come before you again and request for condemnation proceedings,” Janiczek said.

Janiczek said City staff is also working with residents of Birdwood Road and Hillcrest Road to discuss how to address their concerns. The interchange will likely require the closing of Hillcrest Road. The interchange also must go through the Section 106 process because a historic landscape on the grounds of the former Rock Hill Academy and because McIntire Park will be affected.

If Council approves the final interchange design, purchases the right of way, and completes the Section 106 process for the interchange, Janiczek said construction on the interchange could begin in the summer of 2010. She said it will take two years to complete.

Before Janiczek’s presentation, Neighborhood Development Services Director Jim Tolbert gave a history lesson on the reasons why a grade-separated interchange is to be built. In 1999, the City Council indicated it would support the construction of the Parkway, but only with certain conditions.

“One of the primary reasons for moving forward with [a grade-separated] interchange was the traffic that would be created [without it],” Tolbert said. Council’s initial approval was for a design that would have created an intersection that would have 17-lanes. Tolbert showed a simulation that depicted how vehicles traveling on the bypass would back up while waiting for traffic traveling through the Meadowcreek Parkway.

“Without an interchange, this is an intersection that would be terribly congested,” Tolbert said. Council decided to approve the Meadowcreek Parkway but only with a grade-separated interchange.  Former Senator John Warner was persuaded to secure a federal earmark of around $27 million to pay for the interchange.

One more hurdle that doesn’t affect the setting of advertising dates is the lawsuit filed by the Coalition to Preserve McIntire Park. The community is awaiting a ruling from Judge Jay Swett, who heard six hours of arguments in the case on May 19, 2009. At issue is whether City Council’s conveyance of an easement on land in the County was legal. The Coalition sued the City and claim a supermajority of four votes is required to authorize the transfer of public land.

Another potential federal lawsuit regards the segmentation of the Meadowcreek Parkway into three projects. In that case, the road’s opponents claim that the project was illegally split into three in order to avoid federal regulations. That lawsuit has so far not yet been filed.