HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 06 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
July 6,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, July 6,
1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Ms.
Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Pete Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish,
Director of Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County
Engineering, Absent: Mr. Jared Loewenstein.
Approval of Minutes — June 29,1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved a one -week deferral of the vote on the
minutes of June 29, as they had not yet received copies of them.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Deferred Items
ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place
Request to rezone 12.3 acres from R-1, R-6 and R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District to
allow up to 130 dwelling units in a retirement village. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels
55 A-1 and 55 A-5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Route 250 East, adjacent to
Westminster Canterbury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free Bridge and the Charlottesville City limits.
The density of the development is 10.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01— 34 dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood
3, Pantops. Deferred from the June 29, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant, American Senior Living, has
requested a rezoning to PRD for a retirement village to be called Pantops Place. He said that the plan is
for an assisted living center with 72 beds, an independent living building with 40 apartments, and 30
separate residential cottages, and an office building along the frontage of the site. Mr. Benish said that
the independent living facility and office require a special use permit, submitted with the PRD.
He reported that staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance, and cannot recommend approval at this time. Mr. Benish explained that some
favorable factors include: a planned development approach on 12 acres within a development area, full
development of the property has been master planned in detail rather than conceptual pieces, the access
is provided off of an existing road eliminating the need for access from Route 250, the variety of
retirement and housing opportunities the plan provides, the density is consistent with what is promoted
in the Comp. Plan, and the beneficial fiscal impacts of other by -right development that could take place
on site. He added that pedestrian access has been provided in the plan, and the applicant has worked
extensively with adjacent property owners to make the development compatible with their interests.
Mr. Benish stated that staff s primary concerns relate not to the proposed use, but how the use is
developed on the site. He explained that the size and mass of the building don't appear to work well
with existing topography — there is significant reconstruction of 25% and 50% slopes, some of which
may be in conflict with the character of the retirement village use and there is also concern about the
proximity of the slopes to the adjacent residences. Mr. Benish said the traffic study has not been
completed yet, and the need for the proposed office space has not been sufficiently justified. He added
that the ability to reconstruct the slopes and meet existing county requirements for erosion and
sedimentation control is an issue raised by county engineering staff. Mr. Benish said there are also some
issues about the ultimate relationship of ownership within the development, including maintenance
agreements, etc. that need to be clarified. He continued that the location of the service area next to the
residential area of Glen Archy is in very close proximity to future residences, and adequate screening
with the proposed grading activity in that area is "questionable." Mr. Benish concluded that the proffers
have not been finalized, and said staff has outlined some of the questions that need to be clarified before
the proffers are complete.
He read the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report: proffers will be modified to resolve
the issues identified in the staff report; the commercial office building not be approved at this time — if
in the future the applicant wishes to make a case to justify office space in this location, the Planning
Commission and Board can review that at a later date; and grading should not exceed a 3 to 1 slope at
any place on site — 25% slopes that are modified cannot be graded steeper than 3 to 1; and the service
area joining Glen Archy be relocated.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that there are still several critical items that are still opened as far as planning staff
is concerned, and asked if there was a timeline involved in considering the item.
Mr. Benish indicated that the applicant wants some definitive direction, and disagrees with staff that
some of the items are issues. "We're looking at a Planned Residential Development that has some fairly
detailed information on it; some of that information causes us concern. We don't want to get locked into
a plan that presupposes something that we may not be able to adequately address at a site plan level....I
know engineering is uncomfortable with some components of it; we're also concerned with some of the
grades on walkways, and the adjacent grades of 50% slope next to some residential cottages."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the time requirements for action on the proposal, and said, "It just appears
to me that it would be a lot cleaner thing if you would work things out with the applicant before you
brought it to us instead of having [us] sit here and try to figure out these engineering questions."
Mr. Rooker commented that it seems that staff might be willing to delay it, but the applicant wants some
direction from the Commission.
Mr. Benish said that staff has already deferred the item once for staff, and although the window of time
for action is not critical, the applicant wants to move forward.
Mr. Rooker asked if what the applicant provided in his proposal amounts to a preliminary site plan.
Mr. Benish answered that the detail given in the proposal would allow the county to go to administrative
approval of site plans. "What's identified at a rezoning level are some very specific, almost site plan
related issues. The site is limited in size, and the scope of the buildings are large enough that we would
prefer to get these issues addressed at the rezoning before we get locked into a commitment to a scale of
development that doesn't fit well on the site."
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission were to approve the rezoning, does that in effect grant approval of
the specifics that have been submitted by the applicant along with the application. "Are you in fact
locked in on a lot of these details that might otherwise be addressed at the site plan level?"
Mr. Benish responded, "Arguably, there is some latitude at the site plan level....at a rezoning level,
when this level of detail is contemplated, it's a difficult proposition to go back and say `we knew the
scale of that building, we knew where the edge of grading was proposed to be, but it's not O.K. now
when you're in the ministerial aspect of it."'
Mr. Rooker noted staff s indication that staff needs more definitive information on the proffers, and
asked if the proffers are not solidified, how can the Commission vote on a rezoning ... it just appears that
there are some very significant questions just on the proffers, in addition to the other things that you've
raised with respect to the site plan that accompanies the application. I'm somewhat troubled by trying to
act on this tonight."
Mr. Benish said, "I suppose that you could act on the concept of the use in that area, and assume that by
the time of rezoning, issues outlined by staff would be addressed, but you wouldn't be able to act on a
specific recommendation before you."
Mr. Kamptner said, "You really need to make a recommendation on a project, and without proffers ... I
don't know if you can make that kind of recommendation."
Mr. Rooker suggested deferring the item until it's in a more concrete proposal.
Mr. Nitchmann agreed that there are "too many loose ends here."
Mr. Finley said that staffs comments in their report seemed ambiguous about whether or not the
proposed use was appropriate on the site.
Mr. Benish said that the use of a retirement community in this area really isn't the issue ... but whether
given the size and scale of the development if the use is appropriate in the community.
Mr. Finley asked how it would be handled if the Commission voted no, and the applicant then resolved
the issues.
Mr. Rooker said that regardless of how the Commission votes, the item goes to the Board, which has
one year from the submittal of the application to act.
The applicant's representative, Mark Keller of McKee Carson, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Keller said, "We are not on a tight schedule ... we would like to break ground early on a project that
you made decide to approve early in Spring." He said that they have gone through an enormous
number of meetings with county staff and adjacent property owners, adding that they feel the project is
one of cooperation. Mr. Keller added that while the project's designers are concerned about the site's
appearance from the Entrance Corridor, their primary concern is for adjacent property owners.
He continued that there are issues in the staff report that have been "agreeably discussed but just don't
seem to go away."
Mr. Keller said they feel the planned use itself is very important, given the influx of retirees to the area,
current and projected housing needs of an aging population, the need for these forms of housing to be
conveniently located, for these properties to be supported by nearby services, and the low vacancy rate
at existing similar facilities, and the low fiscal impact of a use of this type. Mr. Keller said that the
location of the proposed facility directly adjacent to a similar one, the convenience of nearby goods and
services, the excellent access/infrastructure, and compliance with the Comp. Plan's urban density
guidelines make this a good site for a retirement community.
Referencing a map showing contours on the property, Mr. Keller said their proposed development works
with the topography rather than against it. He explained that the site is more open in the front, with
slopes that are much less steep, which is the reason for the facility's planned location and alignment.
Regarding the issue staff raised regarding reworking of steep slopes, he said that the large expanse of
building sits over a very small section of steep slopes, the majority of steep slopes being in areas without
buildings. He added that the grading for the building sites would require some alteration of steep slopes,
but the buildings themselves are sitting in more "benign" native soils of that property.
Mr. Keller said that the staff s recommendation to disallow any 2 to 1 slopes on the property was not
reasonable in an area like Pantops Mountain, pointing out that the Comp. Plan's recommendation is for
6 to 34 dwelling units per acre. He referenced a map showing the limits of the 2 to 1 slopes on the site
plan, indicating that just over one acre of the 12 acres on site include the steep slopes.
Mr. Keller concluded that the large building, which staff has strongly contested, has been proposed for
the lower elevations of the site, adjacent to the hedgerow, so that existing Westminster Canterbury
residents can see over the building to the views they now enjoy.
Mr. Rooker asked how close the applicant is to completing the proffers.
Mr. Keller replied that they are ready to write any of the proffers they had in draft form into final form,
but the unresolved issues with staff would probably mean significant changes and additions to the
I'ftww proffers.
Mr. Rooker asked about the traffic study.
Mr. Keller replied, "The traffic study is something that we're able to perform. We've given numbers for
our site. Other folks have numbers for their site, but the majority of people as you see in the VDOT
staff report are going to be part of that study, there's two or three players in that whole context that
haven't even developed traffic numbers for their property. We're talking about 700 plus trips for our
proposal. We're prepared to pull together and try to generate assumptions about trip generation figures
for these other developments that don't have them, but ... that is an enormous undertaking for a project of
this size. We would expect that the importance of 250, its improvements, a lot of this homework would
have been done a long time ago, and that we could pull from files these numbers, but after we agreed to
do that we found that those numbers don't exist ... and it's going to take us a while longer to pull those
numbers together."
Mr. Nitchmann asked who the "others" are who don't have traffic numbers.
Mr. Keller responded that Westminster Canterbury does not have any numbers, Peter Jefferson Place
has some numbers, no numbers were generated for the Martha Jefferson Hospital office building; VDOT
assumed that Luxor and one other development would also be included in the study for Pantops Place.
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "So you're going to study traffic patterns for properties that you don't own?"
Mr. Keller said, "That's what's been charged to us."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Benish why that is the case, indicating that it seems unusual.
Mr. Benish replied that what is needed along that section of the road is an intersection analysis which
assumes the level of activity for the properties nearby.
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "Isn't it normal that the property owner is only responsible for identifying his
own traffic patterns, and the other people are responsible [for theirs]?"
Mr. Benish responded, "In rezonings, we've had applicants consider the range of impacts along a road
segment or intersection whether or not they own the property or not. What's being suggested here is
that information is not readily available, and their portion of that impact is probably less significant than
the other players. But nevertheless, it makes it difficult to determine what the ultimate fair share
contribution should be without some idea of the overall traffic impact, and what proportion of that total
impact should be assigned to this development. 700 trips is what percent of the total impact to an
intersection is one of the issues that engineering had suggested needed to be addressed."
Mr. Rooker asked if traffic projections were available for the full build -out of the 250 East corridor.
Mr. Benish replied that the Menu TP system is a network analysis, with network -scale information
available about 250 East; however, it is not sensitive per intersection. "We don't have the ability with
our model to do that kind of work."
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Benish for past examples of applicants have been required to provide traffic
information for their neighbors.
Mr. Benish responded that the UREF analysis takes into account an entire quadrant of Route 29 and
Airport Road.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "Yeah, but that's how many acres though....there was a pretty significant rezoning
that took place there — a Comprehensive Plan change....I would assume that before we went through
that whole Comp. Plan [for Peter Jefferson Place] we knew how many cars Thomas Jefferson Place was
going to have."
Mr. Benish stated that there were projections about what traffic was going to be generated from that
development, but that was a case where at the rezoning and approval of the planned development, a fair
share contribution was not established for that intersection. "We're in a situation where we have no
commitment from that property owner as to what the specific impact is at that intersection. That's
perhaps something we should have done then that we didn't do." He added that at a rezoning during
evaluation of the proffers what the total fair share impact is for contributions to an intersection.
Mr. Nitchmann said that while he agrees with that, it shouldn't be up to the applicant to figure it out for
the whole area, and conclude that his share is 5%.
Mr. Rooker said the applicant has made a proposal to share the cost for prospective road improvements,
and the issue is if the proffer is reasonable. "I don't know that we can place the burden on the applicant
once he's made a proposal to then justify the reasons for his proposal."
25
Mr. Brooks stated, "I don't think we have a specific proposal before us. We have a draft proffer that
says they'll do a study. It doesn't say when or what that study we'll bring about. I guess specifically
what we are looking for is what would happen across 250 between Peter Jefferson Place and Virginia
Land Company's development. They shared a signal at State Farm ... and each one of those did a traffic
study and took into account the other development's traffic plus the traffic predicted across 250, and
came up with numbers for left turn lanes, and how many signal faces, and when that signal would go in.
Peter Jefferson actually has a traffic number at which point the signal needs to be installed. At that point
they've each ... proposed to pay 25% or up to 30%. When we look at something specific from this
applicant, we'd be looking at some sort of study that says they're only contributing 5% maximum,
they're willing to contribute monetarily a maximum of 10%, do we need three faces on a signal, are we
going to need an extra left turn lane or not — that's a major cost item. That kind of specificity is kind of
what we're looking for now, at the point of the rezoning....when you leave it up to staff at a later date,
it's real hard to enforce."
Mr. Rooker said, "It seems to me that he wouldn't necessarily be required to do an expensive traffic
study on the whole area in order to make a proposal for some specific percentage contribution to a
specific road."
Mr. Brooks replied, "I believe the frustration is ... VDOT asks for that sort of thing, and doesn't always
provide enough information. Usually they'll provide you with a traffic count that they've measured on
250 and ask you to put in the future development that Virginia Land is planning and Peter Jefferson
Place is planning. It could get rather involved."
Mr. Rooker commented, "In those cases, they signed an agreement."
Mr. Brooks said, "That should be supplied to this applicant."
Mr. Keller indicated that he did not have copies of those agreements.
Mr. Rooker said that the applicant should get a copy of those to see how he can reasonably participate in
the necessary improvements.
Mr. Keller confirmed that they do not have a specific proposal, but have included two or three
paragraphs in the proffers section that discuss the applicant's willingness to do a cursory study, and then
determine at that point whether a full-blown study is necessary; if it is, then they will participate in
paying for that study ... whatever recommendations that study comes up with, they will participate in the
cost of improvements.
Mr. Keller added that what Mr. Brooks described in terms of study of signalization, turn lanes, etc. is not
a simple analysis, adding that it may be cheaper to "write a check" than pay for analysis. "Being
burdened with the analysis itself can be time-consuming, and just unfair, really, for a 12-acre parcel
when you're considering 1000+ acres overall."
Mr. Rooker suggested that the applicant get a copy of the Virginia Land and Peter Jefferson Place
agreements. "You can then make a specific proposal on what you're cost sharing would be...it could be
based on some reasonable estimate of the traffic you're going to generate prepared with information
that's generally available about what the traffic on the road is and what the other build -outs are going to
contribute, and just make a proposal. When it gets to the point of us voting on this, we have to have
some specifics on the proffers, including that being one of them."
rol
Mr. Finley asked Commissioners to draw together and decide what is needed to make a vote.
4%W Mr. Rieley said that as Mr. Keller has asked for specific guidance, and the county needs to provide that
so that the applicant can work out their proposal. He added that he agrees to the staff s identified
unfavorable factors "numbers 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9"; "numbers 4 and 6" seem to be redundant; and
"number 5" regarding sediment and erosion control is sufficiently detailed in the applicant's plan so that
engineering should be able to identify the specific areas of concern so they can be worked out before the
Commission is re -approached.
Mr. Finley asked about the location of critical slopes.
Referencing the applicant's map, Mr. Benish explained where the slopes are, noting that there is a long
path through the critical slope area.
Mr. Finley asked about the ownership issues and maintenance agreements.
Mr. Benish said that as a single issue, that is not very significant, adding that Zoning has some issues
regarding proper licensing and zoning requirements based on ownership. "We need to know who's
going to maintain the private roads, who's going to maintain the public areas. It's not an
insurmountable issue, but it's just one of those things we'd like to have cleared up."
Mr. Rooker noted staff s comment that the size and mass of the buildings don't work well with the
existing topography because they cause significant grading and reconstruction of slopes in excess of
25%, and asked if the applicant, given the scope of what he is proposing, can satisfy staff on that
requirement on this piece of property. "Are the site characteristics adequate for handling the scope of
this project?" He added that the applicant's interest is in building a project of a certain size if he can,
and "if it's something staff can't recommend with any design characteristics, then we ought to know
that."
Mr. Rieley agreed that that seems to be it is an open question, adding that he is also concerned about
other elements that relate to the scale. "Whenever this is redesigned, it needs to be shown with the other
buildings in the residential neighborhood and the planned lots associated with the Glen Archy side. We
certainly should see it in relation to Westminster Canterbury as well and the relationship between all of
these parts. The view from Monticello is obviously a concern. A site section that shows how that
relates to that provision in our Comprehensive Plan that stresses to protect the Monticello viewshed
certainly should be something that's taken into account."
Mr. Benish said that the ARB initially had concerns about the scale of the structure, but indicated that
they are comfortable from an Entrance Corridor impact viewpoint that the applicant has worked on this
issue. "I think we do need recognize that the applicant has done a lot of work to try to put this in it's
best possible light." He added that there are staff concerns regarding design, safety, and utility that need
to be addressed, but hopefully there is some common ground with the applicant.
Mr. Finley asked about the staffs concern regarding adequate screening, and asked if there is anything
in what the applicant presented that addresses this issue.
1*4w Mr. Benish replied that there is some question about how well the buffer can be retained given the
grading in that area on the site.
Mr. Keller added, "We did set aside a 15-foot buffer along that property line, and the only place where
grading is in it is very near that large existing beech tree that straddles the property line on the bottom.
A small retaining wall could be put above that on the plan, and then we wouldn't have to do any grading
in that area. But the existing line of the hedgerow represents the current drip line, not necessarily where
the trunks of the trees are. The rock wall that straddles the property line is not a retaining wall. It's
merely a field stone wall that was thrown up years ago, and now is in a state of disrepair. We certainly
feel that we can, without compromising those trees at all, do that grading back in that area. There's only
a few areas where the slope is roughly six feet high and the rest of it's less than that."
Mr. Rooker commented, "Maybe you could make a proffer that's very specific on that point."
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the subjectivity of staff's comments regarding "needed" office space. He
asked if the applicant worked closely with both the staff and the engineering department on specific
technical issues, such as grading and erosion control.
Mr. Benish replied that a number of the issues relating to grading and erosion control are comments
from engineering, although the engineering department, zoning, and planning all work together to reach
recommendations.
Mr. Finley asked if the unfavorable observations are jointly worked out by the departments.
Mr. Benish indicated that staff is charged with preparing the staff report, which reflects of comments
made by engineering and other reviewing agencies.
Mr. Nitchmann asked when staff reviewed the proposal, how much weight was placed on the fact that
the development is a good infill development opportunity.
Mr. Benish said that staff did take that into consideration, but the issue remained that the scale of the site
would be too much. "I don't think we have a concern with a retirement community in this location. It's
whether, given the parameters of the site itself and the scale of development proposed, can we address
some of the engineering and scale of development concerns."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the staff was open-minded in reviewing this proposal, realizing that we're
running out of places in the county to put these types of structures, and asked if the county is willing to
look at existing requirements, such as grading on slopes, in that context.
Mr. Benish responded that the county does have to be accommodating to address the ultimate build -out
potential on sites, but also has to be careful that there are good engineering designs that work. "If we try
to shoehorn too much onto a site, with not good engineering standards ... we have to pay diligence to
whether ... in the long term this is going to be a good place to live." He emphasized that he is not saying
there is poor engineering on this site, but said with infill, there needs to be care exercised on small sites.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann said that there are still so many open items on this proposal, and recommended that the
applicant and staff get back together. He also asked for written documentation from engineering on
their concerns and response from the applicant. Mr. Nitchmann said that the proposed use is a
.° continuation of what's been happening in the Pantops/250 East area which "serves a good public need."
He recommended deferral of the item until some of the unresolved issues had been addressed.
Mr. Finley asked for a motion on the item.
,%NW MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of indefinite deferral of ZMA 99-
01. Mr. Rieley stated that the issues listed in the staff report are substantial, and will require significant
reworking. Mr. Rooker said when the proposal comes back, there needs to be a concrete set of proffers.
Mr. Finley added that there also need to be concrete conclusions from staff.
The motion passed unanimously.
Guaranty Bank at Forest Lakes SP 99-13
Request for special use permit to allow drive-in windows for a new bank in accordance with Section
24.2.2. of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows associated with a permitted use.
The property, described as Tax Map 46B4 parcel 1D, contains approximately one acre, and is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on Fortune Park Lane approximately 1/5 mile from the intersection of
Worth Crossing and Seminole Trail (Route 29). The property is zoned Highway Commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as community service in the Hollymead Development
Area. Deferred from the June 29, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the ARB met on the project, and recommended
favorably the concept for the drive-in windows. He stated that the applicant has reduced the number of
drive-in windows from the original five to four — one ATM and four conventional teller windows. He
said that with the ARB's action, staff recommends approval of the SP with conditions as outlined in the
report.
Ms. Washington asked if there was anything included about a traffic light for the area.
Mr. Benish responded that there was not, adding that access will be from Fortune Park Road. He added
that there are issues with that internal roadway network regarding lights needed, but emphasized that this
SP is for additional drive-in windows and one-way circulation.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is a pass -through lane beyond the ATM.
Mr. Benish replied that there is a bypass lane, as required with new developments of this type.
Mr. Finley noted that the public hearing was to be reopened from the previous deferral, and asked for
public comment.
The applicant, Henry Browne, Director of the Bank and its architect, addressed the Commission.
He stated that they have met all of the ARB's criteria, including reduction of the number of drive-in
lanes, relocation of the building, and revision of landscaping. Mr. Browne indicated that there is 24 feet
from the ATM to the outside curb, leaving plenty of room for a passing lane.
Further public comment was invited. None was offered, and the meeting proceeded.
,**AW MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-13 with conditions as presented
by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SDP 99-036, the preliminary site plan
internal circulation waiver with one remaining condition. The motion passed unanimously.
CPA 98-03 Post Office Land Trust [Hollymeadl
Request to study and amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for approximately 641 acres within the
Community of Hollymead (an existing development area), located on the west side of Route 29 North
(Seminole Trail), south of Route 649 (Airport Road), east of Route 606 (Dickerson Road), and north of
the South Fork of the Rivanna River.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, indicating that the area is unique for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment because it is largely undeveloped, and there is an opportunity to address the changes on a
bigger scale. She said that staff believes roads may dictate what happens at this site, especially in light
of what VDOT may recommend for the area. Ms. Thomas said that while the concept of parallel roads
has not formally been presented to the Board of Supervisors, there is a general sense that this is what
VDOT wants to do to alleviate traffic on Route 29.
She reported that on the west side of Route 29, VDOT's parallel road is continuous from it's intersection
with Airport Road at the north to its southern terminus; on the east side, the parallel road stops and starts
because there is a lot of development from Hollymead southward. Ms. Thomas said that the western
spur of the road planned from Timberwood Boulevard (just south of Airport Road) is known as
"Timberwood Extended," which staff anticipates being developed to join up the post office distribution
center road. She added that the juncture of Timberwood Extended and the western parallel road "forms
the heart of the downtown" of the county's northern commercial center.
11#4w Ms. Thomas commented, "We know those two roads are going to be there. It seems very logical to plan
around them and to think about sufficient intensity and density and vitality so that they create an
attraction there. Some of the things the applicant has in his concept map may well contribute to the
feeling that `this is the center of something'.... to really development that community center or
community core requires a concentration of appropriately designated land which, in our view, does not
work well with the strip Regional Service you currently see in the land use plan." Noting the map, Ms.
Thomas explained that the strip of 57 acres that extends on the west side of 29 south from Airport and
joins up with a large block of 255 acres of industrial service.
She noted that that configuration lends itself to a pattern similar to the developed portion of 29, with
numerous entrances off the highway, and internal roads that go from parking area to parking area, or
shopping center to shopping center. "It doesn't really create a sense of having arrived in a distinct area."
Ms. Thomas added that staff is suggesting re -designating that regional service to center on the
crossroads of Timberwood Extended and the western parallel road. She said staff would like to take it
off the highway ant put it where complimentary uses may be developed.
She explained that the south "sub area" is a large block of Regional Service, indicating that one factor in
the current land use plan is there is quite a bit of industrial acreage designated and noting acreage
available at the North Fork Research park, Peter Jefferson Place, and the west side of 29. Ms. Thomas
said that the Community Center concept to the north would re -designate some of the upper portion of
the available industrial to a Regional Service configuration, adding that the southern portion could be
retained as industrial for future employment opportunities. She noted that in the Land Use Plan, the land
is designated to be a basic employment generator, which would include job types that actually work
export goods and services beyond our immediate area.
10
Ms. Thomas continued that there is a joint category called "Office Regional Service," which may reflect
1%0W the kinds of businesses that exists in the county: research, high-tech, light assembly. She added that the
re -designation that wouldn't completely change the area, but might "fine-tune it." Ms. Thomas said that
the lower portion of the Regional Service strip — the 57 acres — might be
re -designated to join that large parcel of 255 industrial acres. Because the strip designation of industrial
doesn't promote a lot of creative options in design and creates access problems, she noted, the re -
designation in a concentrated format around the northern crossroads area might make it logical for the
lower portion of the Regional Service land to go with the large parcel of Industrial. "We would be
would be taking some of the Industrial Service located further north — the 84 acres you see on your map
— and converting maybe the eastern portion of that to Regional Service to create a little more space for
that Community Center."
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a color code for these various areas.
Mr. Benish said that the Regional Service is pink, Industrial Service is magenta, and Office Service is
blue; yellow is Neighborhood Density residential, and the orange is Urban Density.
Mr. Benish said that the general concept is moving toward changing the strip which is currently linear,
and making it a more oriented to an internal design.
Mr. Finley asked how much of the 57-acre strip is being considered to be added to the 255 Industrial
acres.
Ms. Thomas replied that the recommendation is to add the lower 10 acres of the strip.
Ms. Thomas said the Office Service designation would still provide compatibility for a downtown or
town center, because it could involve a variety of uses that could compliment each other in terms of
traffic and parking, using the area at a wide variety of times during day and night. She added that one of
the problems staff is faced with is retaining some kind of residential capacity in the development areas,
because the pressure is to convert to commercial uses. Ms. Thomas explained that there are two
residential areas that are established, and seem to be thriving: Deerwood (on Airport Road), which
recently came in with a rezoning request to expand into additional area in the south, and the Airport
Mobile Home Park on the East Side of Dickerson Road. "If we assume we want to promote some
residential, or retain some residential in there, it seemed logical maybe to connect those two with the
area in between, either designated as Transitional or Residential." She approximated that parcel's size
as 40 acres, noting that the down side is its proximity to the airport, although it is not technically within
the Airport Noise Zone.
Ms. Thomas indicated that while staff likes the idea of a community center, there are others in the
immediate area, and there is a question as to how many of them are going to work. She noted that the
UREF town center is not going to be similar because its purpose is to support business activities within
the park, and mentioned that the established Forest Lakes North commercial area is growing. Ms.
Thomas noted the existing development patterns, explaining that the Towers Land Trust north of Proffit
Road on the East side of Route 29, while currently undeveloped, will have some supporting commercial
and Regional Service designation. "I guess you need to decide whether it makes sense to try and create
a community center in the southwest quadrant in this intersection/area, because you ... have other centers,
'140W either existing or potential."
11
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the Towers' boundaries, Mr. Benish explained the
development as including area north of 84 Lumber east of Route 29, encompassing 30 acres of
designated Regional Service and 20 acres of Office Service and the remainder in Residential. He noted
that the plan for the site is to have a service center concept, more internalized due to the neighborhood.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant for the Towers was planning to build within the existing land use
designation.
Mr. Benish said that staff believes that is the case, and there may be more of a neo-traditional design,
including town center concept. He emphasized that there is not a plan approved for the Towers, and
confirmed that in aggregate there will be a certain amount of residential, commercial, and regional
service. Mr. Benish added that all the Towers property is zoned RA.
Mr. Rieley said, "If we changed the Comprehensive Plan, then that wouldn't be Regional Service
necessarily."
Mr. Benish responded that in 1992, the CPA was approved with this concept, and implied in that
concept was that the total acreages may move around.
Mr. Rooker asked if the site would be developed as a PRD.
Mr. Benish answered that most likely it would be — at least a heavily proffered plan that would have a
concept plan with it.
Mr. Benish continued that there is a town center planned for UREF, which is oriented towards the office
''A` development and serving those needs, including conference center, hotel, etc. He added that UREF is
similar to what Peter Jefferson Place is envisioning for their commercial center, where the focus is on
smaller scale -supported type uses.
Regarding the Post Office Land Trust CPA, Mr. Rooker asked if the entire 641 acres was being
considered, or just the specifics of the 40 acre parcel.
Ms. Thomas replied that staff made that recommendation initially, and the Commission agreed that the
entire area should be reviewed, although the applicant only requests a small portion of that. Mr. Benish
confirmed that the applicant's plan is for just 10 acres, but staff felt it was appropriate to address the
entire area. He then illustrated the 641 acre region on the map, emphasizing that staff wants to "achieve
the right balance" in the area.
Mr. Finley asked for a recap of how the initial application yielded an evaluation of the larger site.
Ms. Thomas recounted that the applicant initially applied for re -designation from Office Service to
Regional Service to allow for development of a multi-plex theatre on a small parcel as illustrated in the
concept plan presented. She explained that when a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is undertaken, the
Commission may decide to look beyond a specific parcel.
Mr. Rooker asked if all of the landowners in the 641-acre parcel were aware of the CPA Amendment.
Ms. Thomas and Mr. Benish said that they have not yet been notified. Mr. Benish said that part of the
reason for the worksession is to find out the Commission's direction so that it can be shared with the
landowners, and added that there are several property owners involved.
1�
En
Regarding the parallel roads, Mr. Thomas asked if 29 becomes limited access, would Timberwood Road
would still be able to cross Route 29.
Mr. Benish replied that it would still cross, and the VDOT proposal for the initial phase for the
improvements to 29 would include continuation of signalized intersections at Airport Road, Proffit and
29, Timberwood Parkway, and Hollymead Drive.
Mr. Thomas asked if Regional Service was designated on that part of 29 — and 29 was limited access —
would the shops be entered from the parallel road or 29.
Mr. Benish answered that the purpose of the parallel road is to provide direct access to the frontage
properties on 29; there would be no direct access to 29 from these frontage properties. "These roads
serve that purpose. The only access point to 29 would be at three intersections. The ultimate
improvements as a second phase to 29, VDOT believes, based on the projected traffic volumes and the
need to maintain a certain level of service is that these intersections would become interchanges."
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any discussion of grade -separated interchanges.
Mr. Benish replied that there has been discussion of a need for an interchange at Airport Road, and with
the development of UREF there was a proffer for contribution towards development of an interchange or
other improvements there. He added that the planning process for the upgrade of 29 has concentrated on
the possibility of an at -grade intersection.
Mr. Rooker suggested that if the intersection is important for the transportation plan, it ought to be
discussed and factored into the Route 29 widening project.
Mr. Benish noted that staff has made those recommendations, and has provided VDOT with design
alternatives for the interchanges; the county suggested utilizing the parallel roads as accesses and de-
emphasizing the ramps at the interchanges. He added that staff is unsure as to whether VDOT is
anticipating land acquisition with the initial phase of the interchanges on 29.
Mr. Finley asked how the process evolves with the CPA, particularly how the adjacent landowners are
involved.
Mr. Benish replied that applicant merely applied for a change in the Plan for a small property, and the
Commission decided to evaluate the entire area; staff has offered some suggestions for appropriate
changes, and now seeks direction from the Commission prior to contacting property owners and getting
their feedback. "Ultimately, the Comp Plan is the county's plan, and just like in any review of the
Comprehensive Plan, you can make any changes based on sound planning.... it's really up to the
Commission and the Board how they want the colors on the map to look."
Mr. Thomas commented that he likes the idea of planning ahead, to avoid a situation such as Brass Inc.,
where decisions are forced on a particular parcel, although affecting a larger area.
Mr. Rooker indicated it would be helpful to have a map that shows the zoning in the quadrant, noting
that regardless of the CPA, the owners have the right to use the property according to its current zoning.
13
Mr. Benish said that a large amount of the region is zoned Rural Area, noting that the area north of
Timberwood Extended is Highway Commercial or C1.
Mr. Rooker said it would also be helpful to have a map that shows ownership, because "swapping"
commercial zoning deeper in off of 29 in exchange for zoning along 29 may not appeal to landowners.
Mr. Benish noted that the actual ownership may not be entirely indicative of options for purchase.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful, if staff knows those options, to provide the Commission with that
information so that fairness to the parties involved can be considered.
Ms. Thomas said that when considering an application from an individual property owner, the
proprietary benefit to that property owner is not taken into consideration.
Mr. Rooker said, "It doesn't make sense to make Comprehensive Plan changes that don't have a chance
of getting adopted because current ownership and zoning make it very unlikely that the owners are ever
going to abandon their existing zoning. We can work real hard on a grand scheme that doesn't have a
chance of ever being put into place because of that."
Mr. Rieley expressed support for the general strategy, particularly the community center and the attempt
to remove a commercial strip from the margins of 29. He continued that he is concerned about how it
will unfold, and the degree to which VDOT is in the driver' seat regarding the placement of roads. "I
think we need to look more carefully at the grain and scale of the [proposed parallel roads] and think in
greater specificity of what this community center is going to be like, and what its composition could be,
and whether or not these existing Comprehensive Plan designations are going to help us get to that
point."
He added that this is a good opportunity to address specifics such as what kind of density is possible,
what kind of mixed uses are possible, and how is it going to be a workable, livable community. "I guess
I'm encouraging us to go farther than cleaning up the boundaries of the existing one." Mr. Rieley said
that the work on this area and what is coming out of the DISC study could be "wonderfully
complimentary." He asked if the timing of DISC would allow that.
Mr. Benish said that the timing is better now than in previous CPA's considered for south of town,
because DISC is closer to making its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, projected for early
Fall. He added that rezonings would be considered after DISC work is completed, so the Comp Plan
sets the stage for the general use expectations are with the recognition that rezonings wouldn't be fully
reviewed until the DISC work was done.
Ms. Benish stated that staff has identified the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area as the first priority area to
consider in post -DISC neighborhood plans.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is within the [prerogative] of the Board to ultimately adopt a Comprehensive Plan
that deals with a large block of property with some degree of specificity when the property may be
owned by 12 different people.
Mr. Kamptner replied that there is no guarantee that what is laid out in the Comprehensive Plan will be
1%W achieved, but it gives the "road map" for guidance for any future decisions that will have to be made in
the future. He added that the Comp Plan needs to reflect what the Commission wants for the county.
14
Mr. Rieley said he is not suggesting that the Commission design where every building goes, but
emphasized that if they can offer a vision for the community, then it allows a general structuring of
language in the Comp Plan that will help achieve that vision. He acknowledged that there is a large part
of growth that is driven by markets, investments, etc.
Mr. Kamptner added, "Whatever is adopted at the Comprehensive Plan may also shape how the site plan
regulations are developed and how they evolve over time, so that even though the applicant may not be
coming in for a discretionary approval, the ministerial actions may in fact change over time as guided by
the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Finley asked what type of impact the reconfiguration would have on owners who may own
Industrial, and wondered if it would handicap them at all.
Ms. Thomas said that because so much of the property is zoned RA, there are much more possibilities,
emphasizing that the staff plan allows a lot of flexibility. "It's pretty hard to talk about people winning
or losing under the kinds of concepts we're discussing simply because they've got a lot of options now,
and they would have a lot of options under a re -designation.. ..one of the realities to this area is we have
a few large landowners who own multiple parcels throughout who have a lot of options at this time, and
a big role to play in the process, and a number of smaller owners who probably don't have enough acre
to do anything really major but naturally want to realize their investment.... so I'm not sure that it's an
immediate tradeoff to the plus or the minus side."
Mr. Benish added that land acquisition in the general area has yielded $75,000 - $100,000 per acre,
regardless of what the land use is. "They're getting a lot of money for all of it."
Mr. Rieley asked if access to the 57-acre strip currently designated Regional Service can be legally
restricted by VDOT.
Mr. Benish answered that the 29 project will be construction where there is acquisition of land through
imminent domain, condemnation procedures, or through negotiated access. "What VDOT is looking at
here is not so much a restriction, but acquiring the rights and providing replacement access to these
properties in a negotiation process. The parallel roads are seen as a way to provide them the legal access
required for properties; they feel like they can do that through their powers, as long as they're providing
reasonable access."
Mr. Benish noted that around the areas around the immediate intersection of Airport and Proffit Roads
there is an emergent pattern of development that has been established - highway -oriented commercial
services such as auto repair shops, an office building, large Regional Service buildings. He added that
on the other side, there is a more community -oriented development, with grocery stores, drug stores,
small offices, day care centers and churches. Regarding the 57-acre parcel staff has suggested
designated for Regional Service, Mr. Benish indicated that it would provide an option for developers
seeking a site for a "big -box," as it is located directly on 29 north. "We do have to recognize under the
current planning that this is an area that has capacity for those big highway -oriented, regional types of
uses....that area under our current plan is stretched out all the way down.... to Hollymead."
Ms. Thomas told the Commission if they like the concept, staff can come back with some general
recommendations for the entire quadrant, and specific recommendations by sub -area.
15
cm
Katorah Rowell, the applicant for the rezoning that instigated the CPA review, addressed the
Commission.
Mr. Rowell said that the previous concept of the area at the intersection of Forest Lakes includes the
through -road coming off of the entrance of Route 29, three lanes, turn and tapers, bicycle lanes on the
side. He indicated that VDOT wants to have the entrance road along the scale of Route 29 as it exists
now. Mr. Rowell noted that one difference on this plan from the previous plan is the vertical road — the
parallel service road — which adjoins the back of frontage properties along Route 29 and proceeds north
to the intersection with North Fork Research Park.
Mr. Rooker asked what the proposed dimensions for the service road are.
Mr. Rowell answered, "Eighty feet as well. They are building two lanes but want to have it large
enough for four, so that would literally be a four lane/four lane crossing intersection there, if VDOT
could have it their way right now." He indicated that the two roads alone would comprise five acres of
pavement, not including the road that needs to be built through to the post office road on the far left
border. Mr. Rowell added that he wants to include brick crosswalks to make the area pedestrian -
friendly, a small downtown at the intersection of a comfortable area. `By the time you add all these
roads in, and what VDOT would envision, it's almost frightening."
He explained his mapped version of the proposal, with three lanes — one for each direction and a single
turn lane that would accommodate a left-hand turn, and double bike -lanes, also bordered with sidewalks.
Mr. Rowell continued to describe his plan for a small office complex, bank branch, convenience
store/gas station, and hotel on the site.
Mr. Benish asked why the parking was not integrated together, and noted the significant elevation on
part of the site, requiring grading and changes.
Mr. Rowell reported that the entrance at the front of the development is at 525 feet elevation, and at the
back the elevation is 625 feet. He confirmed that the present zoning of the property for the proposed
theatre is Light Industrial, and the attempt the rezone the parcel to accommodate the theatre plan has
necessitated the Comprehensive Plan review.
Mr. Finley asked if Mr. Rowell must wait for the entire 640 acres for his small parcel.
Ms. Thomas replied, "At your last meeting, you indicated that you wanted to look at the area as a while,
so that does hold him up."
Mr. Finley asked when the consideration of the CPA would happen.
Ms. Thomas said that it depended partly on what the Commission directs staff to do as a result of the
discussions that have taken place. She added that if more detail is needed, it would probably require
another worksession prior to public hearing.
Mr. Benish indicated that once the Commission's intent is known, the process might move fairly
quickly.
16
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about VDOT's determination of where the roads go. "To put that
road 800 feet away from Route 29 is completely ridiculous." He suggested speaking with someone at
VDOT to give the county's input regarding where the road should go.
Mr. Benish said the county has been giving input.
Noting Mr. Rowell's plan, Mr. Nitchmann said his other concern is the large amount of pavement on the
property for parking. "It's an awful lot of land lost to park vehicles in, especially in the area of the
theatre, which is only going to be used [on evenings and weekends]. If you've got five acres of land lost
just where roads are, wouldn't it be nice to put parking above that five acres that's going to be lost
anyway."
Mr. Benish said the process the county comments through is the public hearing for public roads.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how it evolved that the large road is the size and placement that it is.
Mr. Benish said there is a general acceptance in VDOT of the parallel road system concept for the 29
North Corridor. He said that the localities have recommended more of an access management concept
which doesn't necessarily require a limited access 29 with parallel roads, but the Commonwealth
Transportation Board tabled that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker noted that every community along 29 between Charlottesville and Culpeper opposed this
kind of plan; the 29 North Corridor study itself adopted a recommendation for access management
plans, not the VDOT proposal. He said that the consultant VDOT hired was driving to get this plan
approved, and by the time the communities finished giving input, the recommendation of the study
group was an access management plan to be put in place by agreement between VDOT and the
localities. "VDOT basically at this point seems to be ignoring the recommendation of this million -dollar
study group, and they're going ahead and designing the exact road which was so heavily opposed by all
the localities."
Mr. Benish commented that the county has also recommended that the quadrant be developed with a
strong internal road system. "Where we're having some significant hang-ups with this is really the
design elements. It's not a neighborhood -type street....we have some fundamental problems with the
whole big picture and how it's coming together."
Mr. Rooker noted that the county had envisioned a road like Berkmar extended, not a four -lane
highway.
Mr. Rieley said, "Ultimately, the county is going to have to bite the bullet and decide what we want and
pay for it."
Mr. Rowell added, "We currently have the post office access road. This particular middle road right
now is driven by the UREF entrance off of Airport Road, and the very bottom part where it continues
south runs parallel to splitting current tax map alignment... there are a string of frontage parcels all the
way down through that 57 acres that tail off to a few hundred -feet deep. All [VDOT] did was take a line
and draw it parallel through those properties that front on 29 so that they could close off 29 and say
O.K., you now have access another way because you no longer have access on 29. It is their hope to
make that a throughway. In 20 years they want to see interchanges, overpasses, no lights and it's a
17
straight shot through." Mr. Rowell concluded that he has been pressured to show the space on the map
for the larger roads.
Mr. Benish said that staff s recommendation for the parallel roads is that they would be the minimum
size necessary for an adequate level of service, and staff has asked for bike lanes and sidewalks as urban
section design. He confirmed that VDOT is proposing to build the parallel roads as two lane rural
sections, but added that VDOT is still working on the plan.
Mr. Rieley said, "If that's the proposal, it makes it even more sensible for the county to take it on itself."
He added that the difficulty is trying to build at an urban scale with VDOT road standards. "It simply
doesn't fit. It's not a kit of parts that you can build a town out of."
Mr. Anderson commented, "We've just been through this with North Fork, and what we thought was
going to be a town center street turned out to be a four -lane divided highway. The only way you can
make town centers off that is to make ties off of that road so that you come off the road into the town
center....it's a shocker when you're face to face with it."
Referencing Mr. Nitchmann's comment about a lot of "gray parking area" on his plan, Mr. Rowell said
that based on traffic use and parking requirements for the movie theaters, he was able to come with the
concept of putting offices or frontage stores that buffer the parking lot. "We are actually able to absorb
2 % acres more into building use and green space, due to complimentary use ... office daytime use for
those spaces would have the use of the movie theatre parking lot during the day."
Mr. Anderson asked if the county had any ability to decide where the road alignments from the northern
point to the southern point.
Mr. Benish responded that in the context of the VDOT project, their prime directive is to align the lots
that front on 29 with the back of those properties so that they have direct access. "I think if we can look
at ultimate ownership and see that maybe just those properties as their platted aren't necessarily the
entities that they have to provide the access for, there may be more flexibility within their project."
Mr. Rieley said while he is very pleased with the concept of parallel roads, and having the development
get deep instead of linear, having all of the buildings on 29 turn their back to the road so the traffic can
move through is just "transportation engineering wagging the dog."
Mr. Anderson commented that the UREF situation was an example of the "tail wagging the dog"
Ms. Thomas noted that ideally there would be an inviting view into the town center from 29, but uses
that require this level of parking and the level of separation, "this may not be the crossroads where the
community center ends up because ... it is so vast that it's not the kind of high -density urban that I was
thinking of as a town center....there's tremendous flexibility at this point."
Mr. Nitchmann commented, "The town center will never occur when that road crosses another road if
it's 80 feet wide."
Mr. Benish noted that the area is one of the two big areas of land inventory for Regional Service. "We
might want it to look like a downtown area as much as we can, but the volumes of traffic and the space
required may make it difficult to be part of a true downtown scale."
18
Mr. Rowell said he only owns the 37 acre -parcel, of which half is already zoned commercial. He
confirmed that one owner owns 23 acres behind his, and another owns a lot of acreage to the south.
Mr. Nitchmann emphasized that it would be nice if the county could talk to VDOT and see how
committed they are to their plan. Regarding the CPA change, he added, "Whatever we do, I think it
needs to be flexible enough that permits a developer to look at this property and say `hey, I can do a lot
of things with this if my hands aren't tied."
Mr. Anderson said there should be another worksession with various concepts of how the "chunk"
would be divided, showing where the constraints are if the road is drawn completely parallel to 29, or if
the road were to move somewhere else. "It needs to be done in a fairly loose style with some
alternatives."
Mr. Benish said staff will also give specific recommendations regarding land use. He added that VDOT
is moving forward with their design for 29, and the action the localities recommended is "on hold" by
the CTB while the VDOT plan is considered.
Mr. Rooker noted, "There was always discussion of having Timberwood connect over to Airport Road,
but the concept of having ... four -lane parallel roads all the way down with a limited -access 29 was
specifically what Albemarle County recommended against."
Mr. Finley asked how the VDOT situation would be incorporated in the CPA steps.
Ms. Thomas said that it could be laid out in discussion.
Mr. Rieley asked to see what the county would recommend for a town and community center if the
VDOT roads were not a consideration, and what type of roadwork would be needed to serve it. "That's
the place to begin, and if we can get to that through the direction that this is going in now, that will give
us some useful information I think."
Mr. Finley said it appears that VDOT is already going forward with the road plan.
Mr. Rooker said the VDOT line is not "cast in stone" right now, and the community is certainly lagging
behind if there is no concept of what is wanted for the area and its roads. "It would be helpful to move
forward with this process in the way staff recommended at the end of this report." He asked if the maps
regarding zoning and ownership could be provided before the next worksession.
Mr. Finley asked if Commissioners were in general agreement on the sub -areas.
Mr. Rooker said he was in agreement with it subject to the information to be provided on the maps, but
added that the practicality of what is being proposed also needs to be a factor.
Mr. Rieley asked to see some of the design standards that would be part of this community center. "I
share Ms. Thomas' concern about having the specific proposal for a town center being large buildings
surrounded by a lot of asphalt. That's a model that we have a lot of, and ... I think we could improve on
that."
Mr. Benish said that staff believes that the parallel road envisioned would have to be multiple lanes, and
could be designed just as a two-lane roadway. "Our vision in the past was that it would be much more
19
internalized, which provided for the network of road systems inside of it but was more urban, and two-
lane. But a road like this that goes right through a major corridor of seven or eight -hundred acres that
goes from Industrial Service to Urban Density residential just the volume of traffic and the turning
movements that would be generated would probably dictate that it's going to have to be more than just
two lanes." He added that staff was disappointed that the crossing streets from east to west would be
more of a large intersection instead of a neighborhood as hoped.
Mr. Rieley suggested two roads of two lanes each that carry the same amount of traffic as one four -lane
road that gives access to much more land.
Mr. Benish said staff had envisioned a Berkmar Drive type road, with four lanes only at major
intersections. He added that they also wanted to put the road further off of 29 to allow a smaller
blocking system within the corridor.
Ms. Thomas said the connection with UREF has been a real driving force with VDOT because they
think people will use that as an alternative to 29. "VDOT was arguing that people would go from the
Forest Lakes commercial district via Timberwood up through UREF and out onto 29."
Mr. Thomas said, "It's an extension of the parkway, and if you look at it from North Fork, you can go
from North Fork all the way downtown."
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
OR
170