Crozet “Downtown Mall” gets OK from advisory group

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Sunday, August 22, 2010

A group that oversees planning in Crozet has endorsed a new concept to redevelop a lumber yard on the Square into a walkable and livable community similar to Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall.

“We need a pedestrian mall in Crozet,” said Mike Marshall, chairman of the Crozet Community Advisory Council. “This comes into Crozet’s life at a very fortunate time for us.”

The CCAC voted Thursday to recommend rezoning the 14.74-acre J. Bruce Barnes Lumber Yard and CSX railroad property to allow for future development as part of the Crozet Master Plan.

[full story]

This story also appeared in the Daily Progress.

Albemarle planners update zoning for industry and home businesses

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, August 18, 2010

As Albemarle County seeks to expand its commercial tax base, it is also taking steps to update zoning related to industrial activity and home-based businesses. Increasing economic development opportunities was a key objective of the “economic vitality plan” approved by the Albemarle Board of Supervisors earlier this month.

On Tuesday, the Albemarle County Planning Commission endorsed a proposal to amend the performance standards of industrial zoning districts. County staff said the update was important to help prepare for expanded industrial business opportunities countywide.

“Performance standards … are utilized to control and limit the impacts generated by the use of land,” said county zoning administrator Amelia McCulley. “This is the first comprehensive amendment of this section of the ordinance since 1980, and that’s a long time.”

[full story]

Water plan opponents hold forum on dredging alternative

By Bridgett Lynn and Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
August 10, 2010

Opponents of the adopted community water supply plan held a forum on July 29 to explain why they feel dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is the best solution to meeting the community’s future water needs.

Dede Smith, of the group Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan, provided a presentation to explain why the group is against the plan adopted by City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in 2006. That plan, which has received state and federal permits, calls for an enlarged Ragged Mountain reservoir as well as a new pipeline to connect it to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.

“In a nutshell, it’s over priced, oversized, and based on faulty data,” said Smith.

The plan is based on a 2004 demand analysis conducted by Gannett Fleming that established the water supply would need to be able to provide a “safe yield” of 18.7 million gallons a day. The analysis factored in population estimates, water consumption trends and historical data on rainfall.  It did not incorporate changes to the city and county comprehensive plans made after 1997.  Albemarle County completed its first master plan for a designated growth area in 2004.

Former City Councilor Kevin Lynch argued the community is using less water today and that the demand analysis does not account for these changes in behavior.

“It was relevant once,” Lynch said. “It’s not that it’s false stated, it’s just no longer relevant data.”

Lynch voted for the plan when he was on City Council, but has said since that he did so because the estimates for dredging provided by Gannett Fleming were too high.  In March 2008, the firm estimated that dredging continuously for the 50-year period of the water supply plan could cost as much as $223 million.

City Council asked for several studies to examine various components of the 2006 plan. The firm HDR Engineering was hired to evaluate the feasibility and costs of dredging the South Fork to restore it as close as possible to its original storage volume. The firm is recommending a multi-phase, one-time dredging project that would cost $34 million to $40 million and take about seven years.  HDR said resale of the dredged materials could reduce the dredging costs by as much as $12.7 million.

Another reason the community water supply plan’s implementation has been delayed is due to the rising cost estimate for the new dam at Ragged Mountain Reservoir. In September 2008, Gannett Fleming announced that the cost estimate for a concrete dam had increased to over $70 million. The RWSA hired another firm, Schnabel Engineering, who concluded that switching to an earthen dam would save money, and could be accomplished for a cost between  $28.5 million and $36.6 million.

Members of the group also took issue with a recent draft study from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality which assessed an alternative water plan at the request of Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris.

“What it says is that if we dredge the South Fork Reservoir and build a 13 foot dam … that we can increase the safe yield of our system by about 4 million gallons a day over and above what we have now and still meet the existing flow requirements into the streams that are spelled out in the 45 foot dam permit,” Lynch said.

However, according to Scott Kudlas, a DEQ director responsible for surface and groundwater planning, the Norris plan would not meet stream-flow requirements in the community’s previously approved permits.

“Our conclusion is that the safe yield of the alternative will not meet the demand,” Kudlas said in a July interview. “In order to meet the in-stream flow requirements in the permit, the locality would have to be in voluntary [water] conservation [mode] all the time, and they still wouldn’t meet the in-stream flows from the original permit during the full range of conditions.”

The draft study by DEQ also indicates that the dredging of South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, combined with a renovation and expansion of the existing 1908 dam at Ragged Mountain, would deliver a safe yield of approximately 16.8 million gallons a day, 1.9 million gallons short of the original goal of the community’s 50-year water supply plan.

Richard Lloyd, a representative of Citizens for a Sustainable Water Plan and a board member of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population, also discussed an alternative dredging plan he is recommending for consideration.  Lloyd wrote in a recent advertisement featured in The Hook that a study of his ‘Small Bites’ alternative would “probably find that this method costs less, is more environmentally friendly and produces a much better long-term result.”

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Lloyd could not provide the exact actual costs of his dredging plan nor the amount of water storage in “safe yield” that would be provided.  His ‘Small Bites’ advertisement claims that dredging would “cost about $1 million a year” and provide enough water supply for 30-50 years.

“It’s time for us to go out and find out what that cost would be. It’s time to issue an inquiry and have a competitive situation where different companies would bid,” Lloyd said.

In August, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) Board of Directors will get the results of a new review of the 2004 demand analysis to determine if changes in consumption and community growth might raise or lower the safe yield target. Swartz Engineering Economics was paid $24,000 to conduct the review.

A brand new demand analysis could cost as much as $100,000, according to Tom Frederick, executive director of the RWSA.

Regional effort under way for Chesapeake Bay cleanup

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, August 10, 2010

A federal pollution crackdown meant to protect the Chesapeake Bay likely will spell major changes for local governments and area growth, officials said Monday.

“We’re concerned … local governments are going to be required to increase [their] attention to existing regulatory efforts, that there will also be increased regulatory requirements, [and] … that the new pollutant loadings resulting from growth will need to be offset,” said Steve Williams, executive director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing, for all levels of government, mandates to limit the Total Maximum Daily Load, which refers to the total amount of pollutants and sediment allowed to enter into a body of water before water quality becomes impaired.

The forthcoming changes were discussed at Monday’s meeting of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek, a commission member, said that the new pollutant loadings have important implications for local growth patterns.

“For the last 20 years, any of the gains that we’ve made procedurally [in watershed protection] … have been demolished by the growth,” Mallek said.

“If [the mandate] doesn’t end up being enforced by EPA, the state, or the local governments, [then] it’s going to end up being enforced by the courts,” Williams said. “There will be some sort of lawsuits brought that will ultimately force this down our throats in one way or another.”

The basin commission recommends programs to enhance the water and natural resources in the Rivanna River watershed, a tributary of the James River, which forms Albemarle County’s southern border. The James River watershed accounts for one-fourth of Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay drainage area.

“The major reason that communities should consider being prepared is that, regardless of this federal and state mandate, we have water quality issues in our watershed as well throughout the entire planning district commission,” said Leslie Middleton, the commission’s executive director. “It’s not just in the Rivanna.”

In September, the commission and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will begin facilitating focus group meetings with pairs of elected officials from each of the six member governments. Meetings for other stakeholder groups will be held during next three months.

Additional information can be found on the commission’s Web site at www.rivannariverbasin.org.

This story also appeared in the Daily Progress.

Albemarle collects almost $1 million in land-use revalidation program

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 6, 2010

Albemarle County has collected $955,000 worth of roll-back taxes from a land-use taxation revalidation program adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2008.

The report was shared with the board Wednesday.

“It was important that we put in place a revalidation program so that the public has confidence that the parcels receiving the land-use tax benefits were using their land for agricultural purposes,” said Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker in an interview.

Since 1975, the county has used a land-use program to give reduced assessments to landowners who use their property for agriculture, horticulture, open space or forestry. The program was started to help protect rural land from development.

With the revalidation program, property owners who receive a tax break have to submit proof every two years that they continue to qualify.

“I was disappointed that the county had never done a revalidation,” said Glenmore resident Paul Accad in an interview. “Now they are in the process of completing the first one and look how much money has been, and will continue to be, collected due to the revalidation.”

“My thoughts on the program are that it needs to be run as cheaply as possible given the program’s goals,” Accad said. “I’d like to see those goals posted on the Web site since I’m not sure what they are.”

In 2009, owners of each of the 4,927 properties in the land-use program were mailed revalidation applications and approximately 98 percent of the forms were returned by the December deadline. The applications that were not submitted or that no longer qualified for the tax break were removed from the land-use program and had to pay the roll-back taxes.

The result was a loss of 177 parcels of land and the collection of $955,000 worth of roll-back taxes. The county also received an increase in taxable land value of $46,254,500 and new real estate revenues of $343,208.

Although Supervisor Rodney S. Thomas said he supports the land-use program, he said that he does not necessarily agree with the policy on roll-back taxes paid by people losing eligibility.

“What if I want to get out of this land-use program?” asked Thomas in an interview. “Does that mean I don’t have to pay for the roll-back taxes even if I gave a five-year notice? No, I would have to pay for it. [That’s] one thing I didn’t like about the program.”

The General Assembly has capped the roll-back tax period at five years. Property owners leaving the program have to pay the difference between what they paid under land use and the taxes they would have paid at fair market value. Albemarle County has been unsuccessful in past attempts to get the General Assembly to extend the roll-back penalty to 10 years.

According to Bob Willingham, the county’s assessor, the Real Estate Division is now two months into a field review process to ensure that the parcels in the program meet qualifying standards. The goal is to review the remaining 4,800 parcels over the next two years.

Because the review process just started recently, information on the number of parcels verified has not been collected yet, according to Willingham. Preliminary findings indicate about 33 percent of the applications need additional follow up to verify a qualifying use.

Each property owner will be given an opportunity to provide documentation of a qualifying use before the property is removed from the land-use program and the owner is billed for roll-back taxes.

This story also appeared in the Daily Progress.

Improving conditions for bicyclists a focus of transportation work session

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 6, 2010

At a transportation work session Thursday that attracted a couple of dozen people, Charlottesville city councilors heard from community and staff members about ways to increase bicycle safety.

“The emphasis that I took away from this is more on-street or off-street facilities for bicyclists and public education,” said Jeanie Alexander, the city’s traffic engineer.

Improving bicycling safety has come to the forefront after a 23-year-old University of Virginia graduate student was hit and killed in a collision with a truck on West Main Street in April.

Leo Connally, a teacher at St. Anne’s-Belfield School, said at the meeting that he was hit by a car in April and has also had a bottle thrown at him by an angry motorist when riding his bike in town.

“There’s this animosity between drivers and cyclists when the cyclists don’t follow the rules,” Alexander said.

Lanes that can be striped within the existing roadways to separate bikes and vehicles, as well as other efforts such as “share the road” signing, have been made to improve safety.

City staff also put together a number of sign options to alert motorists and cyclists to the rules of the road.
“One is this ‘Bicycles may use full lane’ sign,” Alexander said. “It’s just another way to alert a motorist to the fact that it is legal for the bicycle to take over the lane and, in many cases, the cyclist should take over the lane for their own safety.”

Additional projects are also under way in the city to create more safe routes for bicyclists.

“We do have funding from [the Virginia Department of Transportation] to design a bridge over the railroad tracks that would connect the two sides [of McIntire Park] for bike [and pedestrian] use, and that would tie into the 250 Bypass trail,” said Chris Jensic, the city’s trails planner.

New ideas to increase bike travel lanes included lane narrowing and “road diets.”

“There are some opportunities where we can narrow the travel lane,” Alexander said. “This is something that we haven’t really done in the past, but it’s an option in some of these places where we can’t fit the bicycle lanes with the standard 12-foot lane [and the] 5-foot bike lane.”

To illustrate lane narrowing, Alexander used Meade Avenue as an example of where an existing road could accommodate a 10-foot-wide, shared-use path.

“Road diets” is another new idea that staff presented as a way to create safer bicycle travel lanes. Preston Avenue was used as an example to show how its four lanes could be reconfigured to serve vehicular, transit and bicycle traffic.

“[One option is] we’re only going to leave one of those lanes for vehicular traffic,” Alexander said. “We’re going to use the other lane in one case for a shared bus and bike lane.”

Jim Tolbert, director of Neighborhood Development Services, also said he expects a draft sidewalk prioritization plan to be brought to the City Council sometime this fall after receiving feedback from the Planning Commission.

Mayor Dave Norris recommended that staff evaluate results from a recent survey by Bike Charlottesville and the Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation.

“There are some suggestions about legislative change that can’t be done at the local level,” Norris said.

The story also appeared in the Daily Progress.

Roundtable discusses streamlined site plan and subdivision review process in Albemarle

By Bridgett Lynn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Albemarle County staff held a roundtable discussion last week to receive public input on potential changes to the site plan and subdivision review process. The project is part of the implementation of the economic development priorities outlined in the “Albemarle County Action Plan” approved by the Board of Supervisors in January.

“We’re trying to make the regulations match the necessity,” county planner Bill Fritz said to the group of about 20 participants.

In June, the Board of Supervisors held a work session to initiate an evaluation of the site plan and subdivision process for the purpose of “reducing the time and cost processing applications.”

“One thing we can do is [make] more decisions administratively,” Fritz said. “The other is to simplify the process and give … applicants more guidance at the very start of the application process [by] clearly stating what your requirements are.”

Fritz said that the changes would also clarify submittal requirements, give good concise timeframes for reviews, eliminate multiple public hearings, and include a presumption of approval.

“I like the sound of it,” said Jo Higgins, former member of the Planning Commission. “It changes the site review committee [to] something of much more power … [Fritz is] talking about evolving site review as to a much more complex and decision making committee, and I think that’s a key thing that needs a definition.”

Some roundtable attendees were concerned about the elimination of public input opportunities.

“The more things you take right now that aren’t purely [administrative] and put into that category of [administrative], you’re shutting out public opportunity where it currently exists,” said Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center.

“We were told [by supervisors] very clearly to … not remove public involvement,” Fritz responded. “We’re trying to figure out how to still include public involvement to the extent that you can in a purely administrative process. What we came up with was the site review meeting where you can work with staff and you can sit down and do those things.”

For projects not receiving planning commission review, staff plan to conduct a site review committee (SRC) meeting with a greater level of public input when a project would require conditions for approval or when staff expect to recommend denial.

Currently, when a project is reviewed before the planning commission, comments up to three minutes are allowed and there is no opportunity to ask follow up questions or provide clarifications. The SRC meeting would give the public an opportunity for an informal dialogue between all parties.

The input gathered from the roundtable and the Board of Supervisors will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board possibly in September, but no dates have been set yet according to staff. Another roundtable discussion may be created after staff reviews all the feedback and make recommendations before returning to the board.

The article also appeared in the Daily Progress.