The riddle of Centerville

 

The “midway” meeting in the Centerville small area plan study, postponed from June during to a Covid infection, was held on July 14 a t Grace Chinese Baptist Church.  

Earlier this year, the county retained Hill Studio (https://www.hillstudio.com/) of Roanoke to take a fresh look at land use in both Courthouse and Centerville Villages. These areas are designated growth  concentration areas in the 2035 County Comprehensive Land Use Plan  (https://www.goochlandva.us/250/2035-Comprehensive-Plan).

Initial meetings were held in March, at which time Hill Studio gave a brief overview of the nine-month process and gathered feedback. Additional discussions were conducted with focus groups comprised of stakeholders in both villages and interested citizens.

Over the years several “Centerville Plans” have been crafted, touted, and left to gather dust.

The July 14 meeting drew a good crowd considering it was held in high summer. Attendees included land owners, developers, the usual suspects, and some new faces. Overheard comments suggest that newcomers did not understand that the presentation was conceptual to spark discussion.

For the record, all land in the Centerville Village is privately owned and will be developed by its owners in what they believe is its highest and best when they see fit.  Land use changes are typically a struggle to fit the square peg of a developer’s proposal into the round hole of the comp plan.

The Centerville Village is huge. David Hill, principal of Hill Studios, overlaid an outline of it on a map of the City of Richmond. The study concentrated on the core between Ashland and Manakin Roads, on both sides of Broad Street Road.  Hill suggested that property owned by the county on the southeastern border be added to the village for public use like a park or school.

Centerville superimposed on Richmond 

Land in Centerville is expensive, due to its location and availability of public utilities that add 32 cents per $100 of valuation ad valorem tax to the base real estate tax. Hill observed that the Centreville core is about the same size as the Powhatan Village and suggested similar building types could work in Centerville.

Broken line indicates Village core

However, a detached single-family cottage in Scottville, a 55+ community there, was valued at approximately $326K. Comparable housing in Reader’s Branch has valuations about twice that. Therefore, accessible housing—costing no more than 30 percent of income—is not likely to be built in Centerville.

East of Rt. 288, Centerville is attitudinally Short Pump.  Yes, Chick Fil A is still coming near the Audi dealership.

Hill said that the Centerville name is rooted in history, even though many people refer to the area as Manakin because the village core has a Manakin-Sabot zip code. Some parts of the village have Richmond addresses, some a Rockville zip code. A member of the consultant team suggested that signage emphasizing the Centerville identity could change this. Adopting a slogan like “Centerville Village, a breath of fresh air” could capitalize on the transition from Short Pump to a slower pace. Sings, banners, logos and other branding mechanisms were shown. (A Google search for Centerville, VA returns information about Centreville in NOVA).

 

The July 14 presentation included a wealth of demographic information, including that the county population grew by more than 13.9 percent since the 2010 federal census. The 2022 population is pegged around 25,000, which is still not a lot of people for a land mass slightly larger than that of Henrico, whose population is north of 300K.  The population of the Centerville Village is approximately 2,047, which includes new homes in Reader’s Branch. Short Pump’s 2020 population was 27,385.

Results from a survey conducted earlier in the year indicate that respondents would like to see medical care, salons and personal care, dry cleaners, a gym, banks, and conference facilities in Centerville. Public uses they want there include gathering spaces for farmers markets, plazas; hiking, biking and equestrian trails; live music; ball fields and sports programming; public art, and educational experiences.

Top rated aspects of the built village are electricity infrastructure, quality of residential development and public water and sewer infrastructure. Best rated economic aspects were quality of businesses and services; dining/shopping options; and attractiveness to visitors. (Yes. That’s what it said, go to the presentation video and see for yourself.)

This all sounds great, but there are trade offs for public spaces. If a developer is required to include a certain amount of open space in a project, higher density is needed to make it economically feasible. If the numbers don’t work, a project will not happen.

The presentation reported that approximately 192,350 people live within a15 minute drive time from Centerville, mostly to the east. The trick, of course, is how to get these potential customers to travel west when there is so much commercial development just over the Henrico line.

Hill suggested using the Tuckahoe Creek flood plain that travels northwest passive recreational as a greenway to connect parts of the village for biking and hiking. He also contended that more landscaping on the 250 setbacks would enhance the village feel for through traffic.  Parallel streets would handle local traffic with access parking for businesses that front on 250.

This is the latest iteration of a street grid that has been proposed before, but never seems to come to fruition. New construction would be two or three stories with office and commercial uses on the ground floor and residential above. The sketches are attractive, but given the glut of nice, new, but empty storefronts and offices a few miles east, what would compel entrepreneurs to invest money in Centerville?

The discussion of branding recommended “gateways” within the village. Welcoming visitors with signage could make people aware that they are in Centerville, not Manakin. “Centerville a breath of fresh air” was floated as a slogan to differentiate Centerville from Short Pump. Centerville has an identity problem this could help.

Interactive feedback where attendees voted by Smartphone to indicate which of several suggestions they prefer for development and what they would like to see added to Centerville generally returned a preference for rural, and resistance to economic development.

Presented with images of dense development in the core, respondents favored small, local business, not commercial, whatever that means. Desired services and businesses included medical office and pharmacy; banks (there are already three there); boutiques; coffee shop; bookstores; salons and personal care; night life and live music. While these sound charming, will any generate enough revenue to pay rent on new construction or generate a profitable customer base? Existing businesses there struggle to stay afloat in older quarters with lower rents.

GOMM attended the July 14 meeting, has watched its video twice, reviewed the slides several times, and is unable to distill the event for readers.

Go to https://www.goochlandva.us/DocumentCenter/View/8871/Goochland-Centerville-Village-Plan-Midway-Slides?bidId= to view the “slides” from the presentation and draw your own conclusions.

Centerville has enormous potential for development, but how and when remain a mystery. The trick is to encourage appropriate growth (good luck codifying that into zoning ordinances) in Centerville without punishing the landowners and businesses there who have paid taxes and otherwise supported the county for many years.

Many of the newcomers who live in the village or on its fringes flee east to shop and live their lives. Will these people use the recreational areas and public spaces, or complain about noise and traffic?

The consultants are expected to make final recommendations in the fall, which could be incorporated into the comp plan.