Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-14 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 14, 2003 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION AsS, ~GNM,,E,,NT May 16,2003 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to Order at 5:45p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dottier. All BOS members present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · Mandy Burbage: Regarding Item # 7, she commented on the traffic problems and the pressure the development would put on Route 29. She also would tike to see the applicant include a plan to accommodate bikers. o Stephen Boch: Regarding Item # 7, he would like the Board to ask for the applicant to come up with a more efficient way to accommodate bikers. This would allow the citizens more ways then one to travel. 5.2 Resolution to Deny Napier Claim. · ADOPTED the attached resolution. 5.3 Proclamation recognizing May 18 through May 24, 2003 as Emergency Medical Services. · ADOPTED and fonvarded to Lee Catlin. 6. SP-2002-063, CVS Pharmacy, Store #t554 Drive-In Window (Si(in # 35). · APPROVED SP-2002-063, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and the addition of a fifth condition. 7. ZMA-2001-019. Hollvmead Town Center, Re(iional Services Area B (Siqn #87). · DEFFERED, to June 11, 2003 Board meeting to allow the applicant time to work on the proffers. 8. sp-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A". · DEFFERED, to June 11, 2003 Board meeting. 9. SP-2001-064. Hollymead. Town Center, '.'Drive-in · DEFFERED, to June 11,2003 Board meeting. 10. Appoint Georgina Knisley as Senior Deputy Clerk. · APPROVED 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Sally Thomas: · Mentioned the Blue Bag Recycling Program being stopped and suggested a proactive response to the public. Dennis Rooker. Mentioned a discussion at the MPO meeting regarding the Hydraulic Road Traingle Traffic Study. Said the cost estimate on the entire package is about $170 million. 22. Adjourn. · At8:13 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. /gak Clerk: Forward signed resolution to County Attorney's off~ce. (Attachment 1) (Attachment 2) Clerk: Set out conditions of approval in (Attachment 3). Attachment 1 - Resolution to Deny Napier Claim. Attachment 2 - Proclamation recognizing May 18 through May 24, 2003 as Emergency Medical Services. Attachment 3 - Conditions of approval. Attachment RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY CAROLYN NAPIER AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY WHEREAS, Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, by counsel, have asserted a claim for damages in the amount of $121,059.06 against the County of Albemarle, as specifically set forth in a letter dated April 7, 2003, arising from alleged damages to property in connection with certain storm drainage improvements that occurred in 2000; and WltEREAS, the Board of Supervisors previously denied a claim asserted by these parties in May 2002 for these same damages; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the present claim is, again, not supported by the facts or by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company for alleged damages in the amount of $121,059.06. Attachment 2 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICF~ WEEK Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, emergency medical services is a vital public service; and the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; and access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and emergency medical services providers have traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramediCs, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others; and Whereas, WheFeas, Whereas, nationally, approximately two-thirds of all emergency medical services providers are volunteers; and the members of emergency medical services teams, whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and residents of our community benefit daily from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; and Whereas, Whereas, Now, Therefore, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and injury prevention and the appropriate use of the emergency medical services system will help reduce national health care costs; !, Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, in recognition of this event, do hereby proclaim the week of May 18 throu.qh May 24, 2003 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. Signed this 14th day of May, 2003. Attachment 3 $P-2002-063. CVS Pharmacy,, Store #1554 Drive-In, Window (Si,qn # 35). Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window to serve' retail pharmacy in accord w/Sec 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 41A & 41D1, contains1.85 acs. Loc on US Rt 29 N across the street from Timberwood Parkway intersec. Znd C-1. Rivanna Dist. The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003, CVS Pharmacy Landscape Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective, dated February, 2003; Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall either post a one (1) year term bond subject to the approval of the County Attorney and the Director of the Department of Engineering and Public Works for an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full frontage improvements along the Timberwood Boulevard extension, to include the construction of a one hundred (100) foot taper and one hundred (100) foot turn lane, the permanent entrance, street trees, and a t'n/e (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk or complete these required improvements. The bond may be extended annually, based upon the County Engineer's approval of a completion schedule for the proposed Timberwood Boulevard extension and the frontage improvements and upon adjusting the amount of the bond to cover the then current estimate of the amount necessary to complete the improvements, as shown on the CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003; Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and review and approval of a revised landscaping plan to include the following. a. Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only groundcover is not appropriate; b. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from twenty-four (24) inches to thirty-six (36) inches at time of planting; and c. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building, Shade trees with fifteen (15) foot to twenty (20) foot maxim um heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as required for adequate island width in those two (2) areas. 4. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan; and A crosswalk shall be required to provide access across the parking lot from the ramp at the end of the sidewalk on the northeast comer of the CVS/Pharmacy building to the sidewalk on the southwest side of Seminole Commons. lARRY W. DAVIS COUNTY ^TTOP~NEY PHONE (434) 972-4067 FAX (434) 972-4068 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Attorney 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 2£902-4596 DEPUTY COUNTY A1TOP~EY GREG KAMPTNER ANDREW H. HERRICK ASSISTANT COUNTY ATrOP, NEYS John P. Cattano, Esquire 408 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Dear John: May15,2003 Carolyn Napier, et al. v. The County of Albemarle, et aL Sincerely, ~I;arr~. Davis County Attorney LWD:md Enclosure cc: ~lla W. Carey Elizabeth M. Ayyildiz, Esq. If you have any questions, please contact me. At the request of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I am providing to you the enclosed Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors denying the claim which you made on behalf of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company. This constitutes the written notice of the disallowance of the claim. RESOLUTION TO DENY CLAIM ASSERTED BY CAROLYN NAPIER AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY WHEREAS, Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, by counsel, have asserted a claim for damages in the amount of $121,059.06 against the County of Albemarle, .as specifically set forth in a letter dated April 7, 2003, arising from alleged damages to property in connection with certain storm drainage improvements that occurred in 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors previously denied a claim asserted by these parties in May 2002 for these same damages; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors £mds that the present claim is, again, not supported by the facts or by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia denies the claim of Carolyn Napier and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company for alleged damages in the amount of $121,059.06. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certifY that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly ad'opted by the Board of Supervisors of Aibemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a. meeting held on May ~ 2003. Mr. Bowerman Mr: Dorrier Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Mr. Rooker Y Ms. Thomas Y Cle~ B--oard of County Sup~ors Aye Nay Y Dominion Virginia Power ILO. B~× 26532 Richmond, \'irgmsa Dominion Virginia Power By First Class Mail April 29, 2OO3 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE-2003-00118 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY d/b/a DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR APPROVAL OF RETAIL ACCESS PILOT PROGRAMS To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to the Order Prescribing Notice And Inviting Comments And Requests for Hearing (the Order) issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia on April 21, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia Power") is hereby serving a copy of the Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of any county, the Mayor or Manager of any city or town, and the equivalent officials in counties, cities, and towns having alternate forms of government, within Dominion Virginia Power's service territory. Please take notice of the contents of the Order. Karen L. Bell Senior Counsel Enclosure coMMO~EALTH OF vIRgiNIA L- i'? .,~. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSIOI~'~ ' ~' '- 0304 3 0389 AT RICHMOND, APRIL 21, 2003 APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY D/B/A DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER For approval of retail access pilot programs ORDER PRESCRIBING NOTICE AND INVITING COMMENTS AND REQUESTS FOR HEARING CASE NO. PUE-2003-00118 t47 3 On March 19, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power ("DVP" or "Company"), filed an application for State Corporation Commission ("Commission") approval to implement three new retail access pilot programs ("Pilots") in its Virginia service territory during the period January I, 2004, through December 31, 2005. In its application, the Company states that the Pilots will make available to competitive service providers ("CSPs") up to 500 MW of load, with expected participation of more than 65,000 customers from a variety of customer classes. To encourage participation by CSPs and customers, the Company proposes to reduce wires charges otherwise applicable to electric customers taking generation service from alternate suppliers. The Commission may approve pilot programs pursuant to its authority under Va. Code §§ 56-577 C and -589 A of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Act"), Chapter 23 of Title 56 (§ 56-576 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, as amended in the 2003 session of the Virginia Gene?al Assembly by House Bill No. 2319 CHB2319"),.effective July 1, 2003. As amended by HB 2319, Ya. Code § 56-577 C will read: The Commission may conduct pilot programs encompassing retail customer choice of electricity energy suppliers for each incumbent electric utility that has not transferred functional control of its transmission facilities to a regional transmission entity prior to January 1, 2003. Upon application of an incumbent electric utility, the Commission may establish opt-in and opt-out municipal aggregation pilots and any other pilot programs the Commission deems to be in the public interest, and the Commission shall report to the Legislative Transition Task Force on the status of such pilots by November of each year through 2006. Virginia Code § 56-589 A, as amended, will read in pertinent part: Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Commission's development and implementation of pilot programs for opt-in, opt- out or any other type of municipal aggregation, as provided in § 56-577. The three proposed Pilots are: (1) Municipal Aggregation Pilot, incorporating approximately 100 MW of load, in which two or more Virginia municipalities will participate in programs to aggregate their residential and small business customers, allowing up to 30,000 participants in an "opt-in" program and up to 30,000 participants in an "opt-out" program; (2) Default Service Pilot, in which competitive default service will be offered to approximately 43,000 residential and small business customers in four blocks of load of approximately 50 MW each; and (3) Commercial and Industrial Pilot, which incorporates approximately 200 MW of load and will include large commercial and industrial customers with demand equal to or greater than 500 kW. The Company proposes to reduce the wires charges for participants during 2004 and 2005 by an amount equal to one-half of the wires charges approved for DVP by the Commission for 2003 in Case No. PUE-2001-00306. DVP indicates, however, that the reduction will not exceed the total wires charges established by the Commission for the applicable customer class for 2004 and 2005. z ~ DVP states in its application that the only situation in which the reduction in the wires charge would be less than 50% of the 2003 wires charges approved by the Commission would be if the total applicable wires charges for either 2004 or 2005 were less than an amount equal to 50% of the 2003 wires charge. For example, if50% of the 2003 wires charge were 0.9 cents, and the 2004 wires charge were 0.8 cents, then the reduction in the wires charge for 2004 would be 0.8 cents. 2 Furthermore, the proposed wires charge reduction is Contingent on the continued use of the same methodology employed by the Commission in Case No. PUE-2001-00306 to determine projected market prices and wires charges for 2004 and 2005. DVP states that a new Pilot Price to Compare will be computed and made available to all eligible customers, reflecting the wires charge reduction. The Company states that the wires charge reduction should stimulate competition by providing greater opportunities for customer savings and better chances for CSPs to recover their operating costs. The Company's proposal states that the Pilots target three different aspects of retail competition: 1) Municipal aggregation; 2) Possible attributes of default service, including the bidding process for the selection of CSPs as default providers; and 3) Facilitating competition for commercial and industrial customers. This pilot will gather information to test - through simulation - several models that have been developed in other jurisdictions to determine the market-based prices at which distribution companies provide electricity supply service to similar customers, subsequent to the capped rate period, In each of the proposed Pilots, customers are free to return to the Company's capped rate service at any time; however, certain commercial and industrial customers would be subject to minimum stay requirements in accordance with Commission rules. Municipal Aggregation Pilot In its Application, DVP proposes that the Municipal Aggregation Pilot will offer 100 MW of load, in which two or more Virginia municipalities will volunteer to participate in a program to aggregate their residential and small business customers. One or more municipalities with a combined total of up to 30,000 customers will use an "opt-in" model, with customers required to make an affirmative decision to participate and switch to the competitive provider arranged by the municipality. In addition, one or more municipalities with a combined total of up to 30,000 customers will use an "opt-out" model. In the opt-out model, eligible customers will be given the opportunity to decline participation, but will be included if they do not make an affirmative decision to withdraw. DVP proposes that the municipalities manage the bidding process whereby supply contracts are awarded to CSPs to provide the customers with electricity supply service. However, the Company proposes that the Commission may provide guidance during the analysis and review the process for bids' received from the CSPs. Default Service Pilot As proposed by DVP, the Default Service Pilot will be offered to approximately 43,000 residential and small business customers, in four blocks of load of approximately 50 MW each, thus totaling 200 MW. According to DVP, the Default Service Pilot will test certain processes and procedures that may be required to administer competitive retail default service, especially after the end of the capped rate period. DVP proposes that the distribution of customers among each of the load blocks will be based on historic load data. The Company proposes to notify customers of their eligibility, and the eligible customers would have 30 days to volunteer to participate. If at the conclusion of that 30-day period any block is under-subscribed, additional customers will be selected using a random selection process. If any rate block is over- subscribed, the Company proposes to conduct a lottery, with oversight and verification by the Commission, to fill the blocks. In its application, DVP proposes a process in which CSPs will bid on serving blocks of customers selected by the Company. DVP includes four basic objectives of the bidding process: (1) to determine if-the bidder is a suitable provider of default service; ~2)maward the .blocks to the suitable bidders with the lowest weighted-average prices; (3) to provide equal class-specific market prices across all four blocks once the blocks have been awarded to a winning bidder; and (4) to ensure that no CSP be awarded more than two blocks. To achieve these objectives, the 4 Company proposes that the Commission determine the qualifications of the bidders, administer the bidding rules, and manage the selection process for awarding the bids. _The Company proposes that following the Commission's awarding of the contracts to the winning CSPs, DVP will send a list of customers in each block to the winning CSPs. The CSPs will then notify each customer of their selection to participate in the Pilot, and will explain their option to decline participation. If a customer does not decline participation in the Pilot, the CSP can submit an enrollment for that customer. Upon enrollment by the CSP, the customer will receive a confirmation letter from DVP and will have ten days to respond, as currently provided in the Retail Access Rules ("Rules") (20 VAC 5-312-80 I). During that 10-day period, the customer can rescind the enrollment, thus canceling his or her switch to the CSP. If a customer declines participation, he or she will be removed from the eligibility list for any future random selection. If the number of customers in each block does not remain at target levels, DVP proposes to "backfill" the blocks by replacing customers who have withdrawn from the Pilot with willing customers from the same rate class. Backfilling will occur first from any waiting list of volunteers, and second by random selection. Commercial and Industrial Pilot DVP proposes that the Commercial and Industrial Pilot offer approximately 200 MW of load to large commercial and industrial customers with demand equal to or greater than 500 kW. Based on the average load of eligible customers, the Company estimates that this Pilot will accommodate approximately 150 customers. The Company proposes that participation will be voluntary, and if the-program -i-s over-subscribed, a tottery-will be used -to select-participants. DVP states in its filing that it wants to use this Pilot to gather as much information as possible about alternative approaches to developing market-based pricing of electricity supply service provided by a distribution company. Therefore, using information collected from Pilot participants, DVP will perform simulations to estimate market-based prices for electricity supply 5 service that customers would have been charged had they returned to the Company's service under those conditions. The Company states that the simulations should supply information and experience that will be useful after the capped rate period ends and all customers are subject to market-based prices. The Company proposes that it and the Staff would mutually agree to apply two or more market-based pricing models that are in use or under consideration in other jurisdictions, suchas Maryland, New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. The market-based pricing models that are ultimately selected should be applicable to similarly situated customers, and provide an opportunity to test approaches that have significant differences. The Company proposes to make the results of this analysis available to the Commission and to the customers participating in this Pilot. Further, DVP states that the analysis would be prepared with the understanding that neither the Commission nor the Company endorses any of the particular methods that are selected to test. NOW THE COMMISSION, having considered the application, finds that DVP's application should be docketed, notice should be given to the public, interested persons should be given an opportunity to comment or request a hearing on the Company's application, and the Staff should investigate and analyze the Company's application and present its recommendations to the Commission. We also ask those interested persons filing comments on the application to address the following questions relating to the three pilots in order to assist us in our determination of this case: 1) 2) 3) Are there-speeific elements of any-of the proposed Pilots that~are~significant barriers to CSP or customer participation? Should all three pilot programs be considered in the same docket and/or set on the same procedural schedule? Who should be responsible for consumer education for the Pilots, and how should any such education be funded? 6 4) Do Va. Code §§ 56-577 C and -589 A, as amended by HB 2319, authorize opt-out programs only for municipal aggregation, or do these provisions permit opt-out programs for other pilot programs, such as the proposed Default Service Pilot? 5) Section 56-577 C, as amended by HB 2319, permits the Commission to establish opt-in and opt-out pilot programs and any other pilot programs the Commission deems to be in the public interest. Are these pilot programs, including opt-out programs, in the public interest? 6) Because the Retail Access Rules, 20 VAC 5-312-10 et seq., apply to the proposed Pilots, must certain of those rules be waived and/or supplemented within the pilot tariffs, i.e., the marketing rules, 20 VAC 5-312-707 7) Should pilot participants receive notification of any change in the projected market price, the Company's fuel factor, wires charge and price-to-compare for the second year of the Pilots? If so, who should be responsible for providing customer notification of such changes? 8) Virginia Code § 56-589 A I states that municipalities or other political subdivisions that aggregate the electric energy load of its retail customers "may not earn a profit but must recover the actual costs incurred in such aggregation." How should this statutory requirement be monitored or enforced, if at all? Who would be responsible for monitoring or enforcement, and by what authority? 9) Are the proposed Pilots discriminatory or otherwise in conflict with Va. Code §§ 56-234, -577 A 2 b, or -5857 10) Regarding DVP's proposed Request For Proposal and bidding process for the Default Service Pilot: (a) To what extent should the Commission be involved in reviewing and/or accepting bids? (b) What qualifications should be required of a bidder? (c) How should an RFP be structured? (d) How rigid should the criterion be in determining conformance of a bid response? Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) This matter is docketed and assigned Case No. PUE-2003-00118. (2) DVP's application and accompanying materials may be viewed during regular business hours at the Commission's Document Control Ce. nter, Tyler Building, First Floor, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Interested persons may also access unofficial copies of the application through the Commission's Docket Search portal at http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo.htm. A copy of the application and accompanying materials may also be obtained by making a written request to counsel for DVP, Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Virginia Power, P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 23261. DVP shall make a copy available on an electronic basis upon request. (3) On or before May 5, 2003, DVP shall publish the following notice as display advertising, not classified, to be published in newspapers having general circulation throughout DVP's service territory: NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY D/B/A DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR APPROVAL OF RETAIL ACCESS PILOT PROGRAMS CASE NO. PUE-2003-00118 On March 19, 2003, Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power ("DVP" or '!Company"), filed an application for State Corporation Commission ("Commission") approval to implement three new retail access pilot programs ("Pilots") in its Virginia service territory during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005. In its application, the Company states that the Pilots will make available to competitive service providers ("CSPs") up to 500 MW of load, with expected participation of more than 65,000 customers from a variety of customer classes. To'encourage participation in the Pilots by CSPs and customers, the Company proposes to reduce wires charges otherwise applicable to electric customers taking generation service from alternate suppliers. DVP's application is made pursuant to Va. Code §§ 56-577 C and -589 A of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Act"), Chapter 23 of Title 56 (§ 56-576 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by the General Assembly in the 2003 session. The three proposed Pilots are: (1) Municipal Aggregation Pilot, incorporating approximately 100 MW of load, in which two · or'rnore:V-irginia-mrmicipatities witt3:rarticipate-in-programs to aggregate their residential and small business customers, allowing up to 30,000 participants in an "opt-in" program and up to 30,000 participants in an "opt-out" program; (2) Default Service Pilot, in which competitive default service will be offered to approximately 43,000 residential and small business customers in four blocks of load of approximately 50 MW each; and (3) Commercial and Industrial Pilot, which incorporates approximately 200 MW of load, and will include large commercial and industrial customers with demand equal to or greater than 500 kW. A copy of the above-referenced application is available for inspection during regular business hours at the State Corporation Commission, Document Control Center, First Floor, Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Interested persons may also access unofficial copies of the application through the Commission's Docket Search portal at http://www.state.va.us/scc/caseinfo.htm. A copy of the applic~ition and accompanying materials may also be obtained by making a written request to counsel for DVP, Karen L. Bell, Esquire, Dominion Virginia Power, P.O. Box 26532, Richmond, Virginia 23261. DVP should make a copy available on an electronic basis upon request. Comments or requests for hearing on the application may be submitted in writing to Joel H. Peck. Clerk, State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. on or before June 4, 2003. A copy of such comments or requests for hearing shall simultaneously be sent to counsel for DVP, at the address set forth above. Requests for hearing shall state why a hearing is necessary and why such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written comments. All correspondence shall refer to Case No. PUE-2003-00118. Interested persons desiring to submit comments or requests for hearing electronically may do so by following the instructions available at the Commission's website:' http://www .state.va.us/scc/casein fo/notice.htm. Interested persons who want to participate fully in this proceeding as a respondent to have the opportunity, for example, to issue interrogatories or cross-examine witnesses, must file a notice of participation on or before June 4, 2003, with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above. Those persons who file comments and do not otherwise file a notice to become a respondent may participate in any scheduled hearing by giving oral testimony as a public witness. Any person who expects to participate as a respondent should promptly obtain a copy of the Order Prcscribing Notice An'd-'Inviting Comments A-nd Requests For Hearing for complete details of the procedural schedule and instructions on participation in this case. If no sufficient request for hearing is received, a formal hearing with oral testimony may not be held, and the Commission may make its decision based upon the papers filed in this proceeding. VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY D/B/A DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER (4) The Company shall forthwith serve a copy of this Order on the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of any county, upon the Mayor or Manager of any city or town, and upon any equivalent officials in counties, cities, and towns having alternate forms of government, within the Company's service territory. Service shall be made by first-class mail or delivery to the customary place of business or residence of the persons served. (5) On or before June 4, 2003, the Company shall file with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above proof of notice and service as required in Ordering Paragraphs (3) and (4) above. (6) On or before June 4, 2003, persons with an interest in this proceeding, including those already on the service list for this Order, who desire to remain on or be added to the service list for future filings and orders in this docket shall file with the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218, a statement of such interest. (7) On or before June 4, 2003, any interested person wishing to participate as a respondent in this proceeding shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of a notice of participation with the Clerk of the Commission, c/o Document Control Center, P. O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118, and shall simultaneously serve a copy of the notice of participation on counsel to the Company at the address set forth in Ordering Paragraph (2) above. Pursuant to Rule 5 VAC 5-20-80 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any notice of participation shall set forth: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the respondent; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. Interested parties shall refer in all of their filed papers to Case No. PUE-2003-00118. 10 (8) On or before June 4, 2003, any interested person wishing to comment on DVP's application, or desiring a hearing in this matter, shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of such written comments and requests for hearing with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above, and shall refer to Case No. PUE-2003-00118. A copy of such comments or requests for hearing shall simultaneously be sent to counsel for DVP, at the address set forth above. Any request for hearing shall detail reasons why such issues cannot be adequately addressed in written comments. If no sufficient request for hearing is received, a formal hearing with oral testimony may not be held, and the Commission may make its decision based upon the papers filed in this proceeding. (9) Interested persons desiring to submit comments or requests for heating electronically may do so by following the instructions available at the Commission's website: http://www.state.va, us/scc/caseinfo/notice.htm. (10) On or before June 19, 2003, the Commission Staff shall review the application and file a report with the Commission presenting its findings and recommendations. (11 ) On or before July 1, 2003, any interested person may file with the Clerk of the Commission, in the same manner as provided' by Ordering Paragraphs (8) and (9) above, any response to the Staff Report. (12) On or before July 8, 2003, the Company may file with the Clerk of the Commission at the address set forth above any response to the Staff Report and/or comments filed by interested persons. (13) The~Company shall respond to written interrogatories within seven (7) business days after receipt of same. Except as modified above, discovery shall be in accordance with Part IV of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. (14) This matter is continued generally. 11 CO UNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department o£ Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 ~ 4012 Apdll0,2003 Lee Bakety Kimley-Horn & Associates 3001 Weston Dr Cary, NC 27513 RE: SP~02-63 CVS Pharmacy, Store #1554 Drive-In Window Tax Map 32, Parcels 41A and 41D Dear Mr. Bakely: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 8, 2003, by a vote of 4-3, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The site shall 13e developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003 CVS Pharmacy Landscape Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective, dated February, 2003. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall either post a one-year term bond subject to the approval of the County A~orney and the Director of the Department of Engineering and Public Works for an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full frontage improvements along the Timberwood Boulevard extension, to include the construction of a 100' taper and 100' turn lane, the permanent entrance, street trees, and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk or complete these required improvements. The bond may be extended annually, based upon the County Engineer's approval of a completion schedule for the proposed Timberwood Boulevard extension and the frontage improvements and upon adjusting the amount of the bond to cover the then current estimate of the amount necessary to complete the improvements, as shown on the CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003: 3 Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and review and approval of a revised landscaping plan to include the following: a. Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only grounocover is not appropriate; b. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from 24" to 36" at time of planting; and c. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with 15 to 20 foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as required for adequate island width in those two areas. 4. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by-pass lanes. signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan. Page 2 Apdll0,2003 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 14, 2003. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jof Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,: MARGARET DOHERTY APRIL 8, 2003 MAY 14, 2003 CVS PHARMACY STORE #1554 SP-02-63 Special Permit for drive-in window Applicant's Proposal: The applicant'proposes to develop the site as a CVS pharmacy with a drive-in window. Petition: Request for special use permit to allow a drive-in window to serve a retail pharmacy in accordance with Section 22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. A site plan application has been submitted to support this request. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 4lA and 41DI, contains 1.85 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on US Route 29 N. at the northwest comer of the intersection with Timberwood Parkway. The property is zoned C-l, Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in the Hollymead Community. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and with Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit and preliminary site plan, with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: This site has most recently been used by the Terry Dean Dance Studio. It was the site of many retail and service uses over the years, which have required zoning clearances, and sign permits, etc. There are no zoning restrictions beyond the underlying zoning~district regulations. On November. 26, 2002, the Planning Commission held a worksession on the Hollymead Town Center. As part of our report to the commission, staff included the following request for direction: In order to accommodate the CVS standard building prototype, the proposed site plan does not comply w/th the principles of the Neighborhood Model. It is not expected that development of a parcel this size, with site constraints including existing utilities, and cross-access agreements, will meet all twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. However, it is staff's opinion that the principles of pedestrian orientation, buildings and spaces of human scale, and relegated parking could be met, and must be met, especially in an Entrance Corridor district. Further, it is the special permit request for a drive-in window, and the applicant's insistence on a standard building prototype that is forcing a site plan that does not meet these principles. Specifically, the plan includes four rows of parking between the building and Route 29 North and one row of parking between the building and the proposed Timberwood Boulevard. The building and site design is generally not at a human scale. There is no relationship between the building and the street and there are no proposed pedestrian connections to the public rights-of-way. Staffis concerned that a decision on this site will set a precedent for future decisions, most notably on the outparcels proposed to be located adjacent Route 29 North, at the Hollymead Town Center. Therefore, staff asks if the Planning Commission agrees with staffthat the site layout, as proposed, could not be recommended for approval? The Planning Commission did not offer comments at the worksession. The applicant has not made significant changes to the site plan since that meeting. Character of the Area: The property is located on a major highway, Route 29 N. Across the street is the Forest Lakes Shopping Center. Adjacent to the north is the Seminole Commons at Forest Lakes retail shopping center. Adjacent to the south is the site of the Hollymead Town Center regional service area. The site is located on the Route 29 N. Entrance Corridor District. By-right Use of the Property: The property is currently zoned C-l, Commercial, which permits a number of high intensity commercial uses, including retail pharmacy. Comprehensive Plan: Requests for special use permits within the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the recommendations set forth in the Land Use Plan. The Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts were implemented to further the County's efforts toward attaining the Comprehensive Plan objective of maintaining the visual integrity of important roadways. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) addresses the aesthetic impacts of development on those roads by applying their design standards for development within the Entrance Corridor. The ARB has reviewed the construction activity proposed with this request for conformity with the County's adopted design guidelines, and expressed no objection to the special use permit, subject to the following conditions: Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only groundcover is not appropriate; 2. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from 24" to 36" at time of planting; and Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with 15 to 20 foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as required for adequate island width in those two areas. Neighborhood Model: Staff has analyzed the drive-in window for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model, and finds it generally in compliance, as follows: Pedestrian A drive-in window is not intended for pedestrian access. The Orientation · applicant has included sidewalks and ramps connecting the front entrance of the pharmacy to :adjoining properties and the sidewalk , proposed along Timberwood Parkway. Neighborhood Friendly Streets ~.Not Applicable and Paths Interconnections The proposal includes vehicular connections to both adjacent parcels. Parks and Open .The neighborhood model recommends open areas of reprieve Space designed for employees of commercial sites. This site is too small to accommodate this type of amenity. Neighborhood Not Applicable. Centers Buildings and The proposed building elevations have been reviewed by the Spaces of Architectural Review Board, which' has provided advisory Human Scale comments, above. Relegated The drive-in window use and CVS standard building prototype Parking · force more of the parking to be located between the building and the adjacent streets. At the least, it was staff's opinion that the building and parking on this site should match the setbacks on the adjacent parcel to the north. Staff worked with the applicant to locate the building as close to both streets as possible and provide enough landscaping to screen the parking. The site plan has been improved greatly since the original submittal, such that parking has been relegated to the ~eatest extent possible, while accommodating the prototype drive-in building. Mixture of Uses Not Applicable. Mix/Housing Not Applicable. Types Redevelopment This is an infill development on a very small site. The applicant has revised the plan many times to accommodate the landscaping and- pedestrian amenities necessary to bring the site closer to being in compliance with the County's current regulations and policies. Site Planning In order to acCommodate the standard CVS building prototype, the that ReSpects applicant has decided to build a retaining wall to support the rear Terrain parking area. The adjacent parcel to the west will likely be entirely re-graded when Timberwood Parkway is built. These slopes are not shown on the open space map and/or serve any aesthetic purpose. Clear Boundaries w/ Not Applicable. . Rural Areas Zoning Ordinance Review Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? The property immediately adjacent the drive-in window is currently occupied with retail uses and has a joint access travelway and parking along that property line. The joint travelway, which is intended to accommodate two-way traffic may be impacted by the one-way drive-in traffic. Therefore, staff has required the applicant to paint directional arrows on the ground to delineate where traffic is one-way and where it is two-way. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The district is characterized by retail uses and service uses. A drive-in pharmacy will not change the character of the district. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The site is shown on the Comprehensive Plan as Regional Service. A drive-in pharmacy is in harmony with this land use category because it provides a service to the Hollymead Community. It also reduces the parking required on-site which allows for more landscaping along the Entrance Corridor. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? The C-I, Commercial Zoning District permits a long list of retail and service type uses, with which the drive-in pharmacy will be in harmony. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? No regulatiOns in Section 5.0 apply specifically to this use. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The use has been reviewed by the site review committee for compliance with public health, safety and general welfare requirements of the county. With the conditions of approval as proposed, the welfare of the community will be protected. Preliminary Site Plan: The preliminary site plan has been reviewed by the site review committee for compliance with County land use regulations. There are remaining technical issues which can be addressed with further review. Staff recommends that the prehminary site plan be administratively approved, upon Board of Supervisor approval of the Special Permit for the drive-in window. Additionally, when the preliminary site plan is revised to a point where it can be approved administratively, staff will send the Planning Commission the request for a critical slopes waiver as a consent agenda item. The critical slopes being disturbed are at the rear of the site. The site willbe graded to accommodate the final grades necessary for Timberwood Parkway. The slopes are not shown on the Open Space Plan and do not serve an aesthetic purpose. Summary: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: · The Planning Commission did not recommend changes to the site plan at the November worksession; and · The ARB has found no objection to the special permit requests and recommends approval. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: · The proposed CVS standard building prototype dictates a design which sets the building further back from Route 29 N. than the buildings on the adjacent parcel to the north and places more parking along the Entrance Corridor; and · The drive-in stacking area, required by the new parking ordinance, dictates an .inferior layout and may create a conflict with traffic in the joint access travelway to the north. Staffbelieves that ifa drive-in window for aCVS Pharmacy is an appropriate use at this location, on this small lot, than the applicant, in working with staff, has achieved all that could be done to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: While staff has concerns regarding the site layout that the drive-in window use dictates, the ARB has expressed no objection to the design, the Planning Commission did not comment on the design at the worksession and staffrecognizes that the stacking requirements of the parking provisions affect the design. Therefore, staff finds that the request for a drive-in window generally complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval of SP-02-63, with the following conditions: The site shall be developed in general accord with the attached plans, entitled CVS/ Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003, CVS Pharmacy Landscape Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective, 'dated February, 2003. The applicant shall post a bond with the Department of Engineering and Public Works for an amount sufficient to cover the cost of full frontage improvements on Timberwood Parkway, to include the construction of a right-turn lane, the permanent entrance, street trees, and a 5' concrete sidewalk; 3. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and review and approval of a revised landscaping plan to include the following: ao Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only groundcover is not appropriate; b. Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from 24" to 36" at time of planting; and Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with 15 to 20 foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as required for adequate island width in those two areas. 4. Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices such as by- pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings as indicated on the site plan. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Architectural Review Board action letter, dated March 25, 2003. C- Concept Plan entitled, CVS/Pharmacy Site Plan, dated March 3, 2003, CVS Pharmacy Landscape Section, dated February, 2003, and CVS Pharmacy Landscape Perspective, dated February, 2003. / / / / / ALBEMARLE 20 COUNTY~ SA CHRIS SREENE L&KE / ./ Store # 155~1 ATTACHMENT A 55 56 46 WHITE HA.~L, RIO& RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION ATTACHMENT B March 25, 2003 COUNTY OF, ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mckntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virg/nia 22902 ph (804) 296-5823 x3250 fax (804) 972-4012 Ricardo Pulido Little Diversified Architectural Consulting 5815 Westpark Drive Charlotte, NC 28217 RE: ARB-2003-22 CVS Pharmacy Store No. 1554 Tax Map 32, Parcels 41A and 41D1 Dear Mr. Pulido: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on March 17, 2003, completed a preliminary review of the above-noted request to redevelop the "dance studio" site with a CVS store, including a drive-thru window as well as an Advisory Review for a Special Use Permit. Regarding the Special Use Permit, the Board, by a vote of 3:1 forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: The ARB expresses no objection to the special use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are suited for embankments, and replacement trees along the 2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only greundcover is not appropriate. 2. Revise the buffer shrub Planting heights from 24" to 36" at time of planting. 3. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of.the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with 15 to 20 foot maximum heights are appropriate. Revise the parking as req uired for adequate island width in those two areas. Regarding the Preliminary Site Development Plan, the Board, offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's final submission. Please note that the following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review and changes to the plan. 1. Align the building and parking with the building and parking on the adjacent site. 2. Provide details for the retaining walls. 3. Relocate the transformer to the rear of the building. 4. Clarify how the grade change across the parking lot will impact the appearance of the front of the building 5. Coordinate all references to building area. 6. Provide a complete lighting plan addressing all proposed building and site lighting. All fixtures shall be full cutoff fixtures. 7. Remove the upper wall lights from the proposal. 8. Remove all wall lights from the right elevation. Page 2 March 25, 2003 9. Provide material and color samples, including the spandrel glass. 10. Provide complete sign information. 11. Remove the building illustration from the front page of the site plan set. 12. Submit easement documentation for off-site grading and landscaping. 13. Provide alternative groundcover, shrubs that are sUited for embankments, and replacement trees along the '2:1 slope area to the rear of the site. A blank slope with only groundcover is not appropriate. 14. Provide groundcover all slopes 3:1 or greater. 15. Provide a signed conservation plan checklist and include on the plan the details that relate to the proposed development. 16. Provide 3.5" caliper shade trees 35' on center along the EC with interspersed ornamentals. 17 Revise the buffer shrub planting heights from 24" to 36" at time of planting. 18. Revise the width of'the planting islands to a minimum of 5' from inside curb to inside curb. 19. Show proposed trees lines on the landscape plan. 20. Add one shade tree in each parking island east of the building, at the ends of the parking row fronting the building. Shade trees with 15 to 20 foot maximum heights are appropriate. 21. Revise the spacing of the shade trees so that two (2) shade trees can be added within the row of Zelkovas when the first entrance to the site is closed. Continue the row of shade trees west along the future road to the rear property line. You may submit your application for final ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.albemarle.org/~_nin.q Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Please include a memo outlining how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM/jcf Cc: File Margaret M. Maliszewskt, Desitin Planner County of Albemarle, Dept. of Planning & Community Development 434-296-5823 x3276 Fax 434-972-4012 ) NCE DUMPSTER WALL DETAIL I FUT4JR£ DRI~E:WAY~'(TO BE INSTALLED DU~NG CONSTRUOTION O~ 28.20' ?'._ ' 4VE~ENT \ BOULEVARD (SR 1721 3RAFRC COUNTS NOT AVAILABLE GRAPHIC SCAL~ 0'6 -r- o CONSULTANT: KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOC. :'{001 WESTON PARKWAY CARY, NC 27515-2501 TEL (919) 677-2000 FAX (919) '677-2050 cvs/, 11,970 PROTOTYPE STORE NUMBER: 0155~- US 29 &: '/NBERWOOD PKWY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEVELOPER: THE REBKEE COMPANY 1040-B OLD SON AIR ROAD RICHMOND, VA 23255 PHONE: (804) 560-0500 FAX: (804-) 560-0778 RE'vISIONS: REV, PER COUNTY COMMENTS, 01-31-03 LAYOUT COORD: LWB PLANNING MGR, JAB DRAWING BY: CAW DATE: 10-11-02 JOB NUMBER: 012111005 TITLE: 8~TE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: t,§g[O :~I38PIflN 3~JOIS /SAO Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05-07-0~~ AGENDA TITLE: Hollymead Town Center (Area B) ZMA 01-19, SP 02-63, & SP 02-64 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezoning request to rezone24.7 acres from PA, Rural Areas with proffers and HC, Highway Commercial to PD- MC, Planned Development- Mixed Commercial to allow for a shopping center. And two special use permit requests for drive throughs associated with permitted uses. The property, described as portions of Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A, and 44, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North approximately 1/4 mile south of the Timberwood Boulevard/Route 29 intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community and recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Barnes; Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: May 14, 2003 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its March 11th public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed two of the four rezoning requests associated with the Hollymead Town Center. After the public hearings, the applicant requested indefinite deferral to continue work on ZMA 01-18 ("Area A") and a divided Commission voted 3 to 3 on a motion to recommend approval of the Dierman Realty's applications (ZMA 01-19, SP 02-63 & SP 02-64, "Area B"). Therefore, Area B was sent to the Board without recommendation. This Executive Summary is provided to identify outstanding transportation and design issues. It also provides a list of commitments and conditions that staff believes need to be addressed should the Board desire to approve the ZMA and SP's. Please note that two other Hollymead Town Center applications Virginia Land Company (ZMA 01-20, "Area C") and the Kessler Group (ZMA 02-02 "Area D"), are scheduled to th be reviewed with public hearings by the Planning Commission on May 27 and by the Board of Supervisors on June 11th. (See At~tachment A for Vicinity Map) DISCUSSION: Traffic ~ Currently, Route 29 between the North and South Fork of the Rivanna River experiences heavy traffic and undesirable Level of Service (LOS) during the morning and evening peak hours. It averages 43,000 average daily trips (ADT) in front the Hollymead Town Center. During the evening rush hour, the Route 29/Hollymead Drive intersection is at a LOS E and the Route 29 intersections with Rio Road and Airport Road are at a LOS F (failing). Hollymead Town Center, Area B (Dierman) - BOS Exec. Summary Page 1 The applicants' traffic study projects an additional 39,3304 ADT at build-out of the Hollymead Town Center. Area B accounts for approximately 37% of the Town Center's total trips. If only Area B is approved and no other alternative access to Area B is provided, approximately 14,500 trips (factoring in capture of existing .pass-by traffic) generated by Area B would have to use Route 29 at a proposed signal acroSs from Holly Memorial Gardens, which is not supported by VDOT at this'time. If the other rezonings are approved and interconnections are provided to Airport Road, approximately 10,500 of Area B's trips would still use Route 29. In either case, a majority of the trips from the Town Center and Area B will utilize Route. 29. in its current condition, Route 29 will be severely impacted by the development proposed in Area B, .much less the entire Town Center. Without improvement to Route 29 and/or other transportation system improvements in this area, Area B's development will significantly contribute to conditions o Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River that will be similar to those that existed on Route 29 south of the South Fork Rivanna River before the 8-lane improvements took place. Rural roads, such as Route 20, Proffit Road, and Eadysville Road will also experience significant impacts from additional traffic and will require improvements. In addition to these issues, the applicant's proposal does not provide for several important items. It does not provide for a third lane across the Route-29 frontage of the property nor accommodate the possibility of widening for a future 6-lane sectiOn of roadway at this location should it be deemed necessary. It also does not include construction of the major parallel road, Access Road C, called for in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), which could take a portion of traffic off of Route 29 between Airport Road and Hollymead Drive by providing alternative access to Airport Road. Currently, there are no plans to improve Route 29 or build parallel facilities. Additionally, current fiscal conditions at the state and local levels limit the public sector's capacity to provide for additional improvements in the Hollymead Development Area. The net effect of approving Area B as proposed or any other portion of the Town Center, except Area D, will be increased congestion on Route 29, near failing or failing intersections along Route 29 from Rio Road north, and an increase in congestion on nearby rural roads with few options to remedy the situation. Design of Project/Application Plan At the Planning Commission's March 11th public hearing on Area B, the Commission reviewed the Application Plan provided with the previous staff report. Based on this plan, staff outlined the Area B's favorable and unfavorable factors (pages 25 through 26 of attached staff report). In the Commission's meeting minutes, several additional concerns were raised with this plan. The applicant recently submitted a revised application plan (Attachment D). Positive changes to the plan include framing of Main Street with a new building and sidewalks, enlargement of an outparcel building along Route 29 to try to balance the mass of the big box building, and an addition of a few trees to the "plaza area" between Outparcels 3 & 4. Unexpected changes include additional square footage for the big box, These trip generation figures include internal capture rates and external pass-by rates. Hollymead Town Center, Area B (Dierman) - BOS Exec. Summary Page 2 elimination of trees internal to the parking lot, elimination of tree-lined pedestrian interconnections, and addition of a loading dock adjacent to Route 29. Unfortunately, because of the timing of the submittal, only the Planning Department has been able to review the latest submission. VDOT and other County Departments have been unable to provide the Board with any comments on the latest revision. The following items continue to be outstanding issues: · Although the proposal for Area B provides for interconnections between parcels through a "~modified" grid network, the grid shown relies on drive-aisles through parking lots and results in unnecessary jogs. · The location and orientation of the buildings, the grading scheme, and the applicant's desire for a parking lot with a grade of 1% (County regulations allow up to5%) necessitate a combination of retaining walls and extensive grading in Areas A and B. In Area A, grading will result in the removal of 20 feet from the ridge behind Area B. The result of the grading, as proposed, leaves uncertainty as to the affect on the ability to develop Area A, which is the "Main Street" area. · The Water Resource Manager believes that on-site mitigation measures for water quality are needed and the proposed design precludes installation of such features. · Stormwater detention for Area B is shown in Area A and the basin intrudes into the stream buffer and negatively impacts the design and characteristics for a Greenway called for in the ComprehenSive Plan Amendment for Hollymead Town Center. · The ARB has not reviewed the most recent proposal and it is unknown whether EC standards can be met. As an example, a loading dock for the big box store is shown adjacent to Route 29 and it is unknown whether screening can modify the visual impact. · Although the big box store will have large facades (one is 600 feet long), no commitments have been made for architectural features to deal with the mass of the large facades or create a pedestrian relationship. · The Hollymead Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizes that the Mixed Use/ Regional Service area may initially be built as a lower density; however, it requires any development to allow for future infill possibilities. As proposed, Area B's surface parking lots, the areas most likely to be infilled, are bisected with utilities. The Application Plan should contemplate future infill possibilities with a future infill strategy and relocate these utilities out of the parking fields. · Although the requested conditional use permits for drive-throughs were analyzed by the Planning Commission, no recommended conditions were provided due to the fact that the ARB has not completed its review. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not recommend approval of the rezoning for the reasons stated in this report. If the Board wishes to approve this request as proposed with the current application plan, before ARB review, and before development of a comprehensive transportation Hollymead Town Center, Area B (Dierman) - BOS Exec. Summary Page 3 system improvement plan for the area, staff recommends, at a minimum, that the applicant make commitments to the following items: 1. Construct the portion of Access Road C, the major road paralleling Route 29, within Area A so as to provided direct access to Airport Road to the north. 2. Make provision on the plan for a third lane on Route 29 across the frontage of the property and dedicate additional right-of-way if it is needed for the third lane. 3. Fund a portion of the cost fOr development of the proposed regional transportation system improvement study. ~ Participate in a future Community Development Authority (CDA) to help fund road improvements related to Route 29 North and its supporting facilities: Provide fa~;ade treatments to break up the mass of the large walls for the big box. Remove the loading dock from the area adjacent to Route 29, provide tree-lined pedestrian linkages through the parking lots, and break up the surface parking lots with appropriate landscaping. Provide stormwater management as recommended by the Water Resource Manager. Conditions for the Special Use Permits for Drive-through facilities: 1. The Architectural Review Board may alter the locations and/or orientation of drive- throughS to protect the Entrance Corridor. 2. The Applicant is responsible for installation and maintenance of control devices, such as by-pass lanes, signage, and pavement markings shown on a site plan for the development. ATTACHMENTS A - Vicinity.map B - Recommend road improvements from the traffic study C - Proffers for Area B D- Application Plan revised after the Planning Commission's consideration Hollymead Town Center, Area B (Dierman) - BOS Exec. Summary Page 4 Forest Springs MHP L 02- '~' <:ZMA O1 E ZMA tC ATTACHMENT A Vicinity Map North CPA Boundary zMA Areas ,d ...\Hol ymead\hol!ymead.rdl 05/06/2003 01:40:01 PM US 29 .LEGEND Existing Lane Configurations VDOT Improvements Developer Improvements Mitigation Improvements (Phase 4) Mitigation Improvements (Phase 2) Existing Traffic Signal VDOT Traffic Signal (Proposed) Developer Traffic Signal (Proposed) Mitigation Phase 1 Traffic Signal (Proposed) Mitigation Phase 2 Traffic Signal (Proposed) Existing Storage/95th Percentile Mitigation VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity 555'/555' 555'* US 29 Hollymeade Multi-Use Development Roadway Improvements Not to Scale -~ Figure 009 ~ 6~ I "- t 6~ SR Proffit Road LEGEND Existing Lane Configurations VDOT Improvements Developer improvements Mitigation Improvements (Phase 1) Mitigation Improvements (Phase 2) Existing Traffic Signal VDOT Traffic Signal (Proposed) Developer Traffic SignaJ (Proposed) Mitigation Phase 1 Traffic Signal (Proposed) Mitigation Phase 2 Traffic Signal (Proposed) Existing Storage/95th Percentile Mitigation VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity 555'/555' 555'* Lewis and Clark Drive Hollymeade Multi-Use Development Roadway Improvements peon1 ATTACHMENT 19 VA Route 743 ........................... ~!Q~L_~_J Rio Road LEGEND Existing Lane Configurations ~ VDOT Improvements Developer Improvements Mitigation Improvements (Phase ~) Mitigation Improvements (Phase 2) Existing Traffic Signal [] Signal (Proposed) ~ VDOT Traffic Developer Traffic Signal (Proposed) L~ MitJgafJon Phase I Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Mitigation Phase 2 Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Existing Storage/95th Percentile Mitigation 555?555' VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity 555'* Hollymeade Multi-Use Deveiopment Roadway improvements Not to Scale I Figure B-l_ E _ ATTACHMENT C ZMA-01-019 PROFFERS Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B May 14, 2003 TAX MAP PARCELS 32-41D (part), 42B (part), 42C (part), 42D, 42E, 43, and 43A(part) [24.7] Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property identified on the attached zoning map. If there is a discrepancy between the attached zoning map and the duly adopted official zoning map, the duly adopted official zoning map shall control. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan entitled, ., prepared by Rivarma Engineering, revised January __, 2003, last revised March ,2003 ("Application Plan"), The owner shall have caused completion of the following road improvements by December 31, 2005: A. Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan across from the Hollymead Cemetery at Route 29 up to the western boundary of Area B. B. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A. C. Full signalization at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A. D. Right turn lane, southbound at Route 29 and Access Road A. These road improvements shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the owner and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). o Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described above-shall be satisfied i'fthe owner has submitted plans for all such road improvements for review by VDOT, and although such improvements are not-fully completed by December 31, 2005, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements_in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Submitted as of the 7th day of May, 2003, by: River Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited parmership ]'1 ATTACHMENT D '2 2"NCHFR "B' .................. "~'""' /-STORY / ....... ~&ooo s'z /' F F E' "~ - . 5~ ~= O E?-/ _ ................... ~-~TOm' ........ 5'~>O~OV.~...~. .... .... ??E = 55.~,~ ~ 285' RETAIL ,BU£LDD~[G 3 18.,000 $.P. FFE = - ' ' .... 15,000 SF "BL~ILDbVG 2 I-STORY ; I0. O00 S.F, FF£ = .~50.5', : ~ ANCHOR A / '/42~500 2. F. TOT. ~' F~E = 548.00 o 50 .~' 3MO~ ,' R. MILLER No STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: MICHAEL BARNES MARCH 11, 2003 MAY 14, 2003 ZMA 01-19 SP 01-63 SP 01-64 Hollymead Town Center, Area B Drive-In A, Area B Drive-In B, Area B Applicants, Dierman Realty/Regency Centers Edited to provided only Area B information for the BOS APPLICATION OVERVIEW Applicant's Proposal: The applicants, Dierman Realty Corporation and Regency Centers, request a rczoning of 24.7 acres from RA (Rural Area) with Proffers and HC (Highway Commercial) to PD-MC (Planned Development-Mixed Commercial) with proffers. The application plan proposes a shopping center with 298,156 square feet of retail (See Attachment N-5 for the application plan). The retail will be in single-story buildings with surface parking lots in front, of the stores. The applicants have provided conceptual plans for how the development could infill over time. The infill would over time create a more densely, intense utilization of the property as is called for in the Hi~llymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03). However, the applicants have not committed to how or when this might happen. ' Attachment 0-5. The applicants proffers are PetJ~Jon For RezonJng: - The applicants request to rezone 24.7 acres from RA, Rural Areas with proffers and ItC, Highway Commercial to PD-MC, Planned Development- Mixed Commercial to allow for a shopping center. The property, described as portions of Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A, and 44, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North approximately 1/4 mile south of the Timberwood Boulevard/Route 29 intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community and recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses. Character o£ the Area: The subject properties are bounded by the ZMA 01-18 to the south and west and ZMA 01-20 to the north (Attachment A-5). Route 29 forms the western boundary of the project. The Hollymead Gardens Cemetery and a vacant, commercially zoned property are opposite the project across Route 29 (See Vicinity Map - Attachment F-5). The properties are on the eastern slopes of a ridge that runs north-south through the Hollymead Town. Center. Several swales run down the slope. There are no pereimial streams in these swales. A majority of the property has recently been logged. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 14 Planning and Zoning History; History of Rezonings and special use permits for TMP 32-43, 43A, 43E, 421), 42C, 42,4, 44, 45, 50 and TMP 46-5: SP 158 - In 1972, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing general store onTMP 32-43 and 43A. CPA 90-03 - The Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Land Use Map that changed the area where the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park is today to Urban Residential. This CPA also created a Regional Service designation along Route 29 on the properties referenced in this section. ZMA 92-1~ & SP 93-13 - Wendell Wood applied for a rezomng and special use permit to allow for a mobile home park. The Board of Supervisors approved both'ZMA 92-14 and SP 93-13 which lead to the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park (TMP 32-53). This rezonmg affected the TMP 32-43; 43A, 43E, 42D, 42C, 42A and TMP 46-5 by limited the access of these seven parcels to three (3) points of access to Route 29. ZMA 93-06 - The Board of Supervisors approved this request to rezone 7.9 acres (TMP 32-43 and 43A) from RA to HC to allow for mobile home sales on these lots. This rezoning reiterated ZMA 92-14 access restriction by limiting TMP 32-43, 43A, 43E, 42D, 42C, 42A and TMP 46-5 to three (3) points of access to Route 29. The proffers also required that the owner construct an access road between Route 29 and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. Finally, the proffers placed constraints on the property to control any potential aesthetic impacts. ZMA 95-17 & SP 95-31- The Board of Supervisors approved this request to modify the proffers which limited the potential aesthetic impacts of the mobile home sales and allowed for auto sales. SP 95-31 was approved and allowed the outdoor display of automobiles. ZMA 96-25 - The applicant requested a repeal of the ZMA 93-06 proffer that required the owner construct an access road between Route 29 and the Forest Springs Mobile Home Park. This request was withdrawn prior to action by the Board of Supervisors. SP 96-41 - The Board of Supervisors approved a request to modify the conditions from previous special use permits governing the display of mobile homes. Thus, the subject properties are all zoned RA and have a proffer that restricts their access to Route 29 to three common access points. By-tgght Use of the Properties: The three of the properties are currently zoned RA Rural Areas and have approximately 5 dwelling units by-fight. There are no density bonuses available with RA zoning. Tax Map 32 parcel 43 and 43A contain 11.4 acres of Highway Commercial with a special use permit (SP 96- 41) that allows for the display of mobile homes and automobiles. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicants recognize the public demand for retail opportunities within the community, especially the pent up demand for a large-scale retailer like a Target store. Recommendation: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Because of significant factors related to design, transportation, and fiscal considerations, staff recommends disapproval. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 15 STAFF ANALYSIS CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This section will assess the ability of ZMA 01-I9 to meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the rezoning request will be assessed against the following components of the Comprehensive Plan: the Land Use Plan designation, any general recommendations pertaining to the Hollymead Community, the Community Facilities Plan, the Open Space Plan, the Natural Resources section, the Neighborhood Model and the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03). Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Plan's Land Use plan designates the area as the Hollymead Town Center, a mixed-use zone intended to be the focal point of the Hollymead Community. Furthermore, CPA 98-03 references the Daggett and Grigg Master Plan to determine where the land use designations should be within the Town Center (Attachment G-5). ZMA 01-19 is in a MiXed Use/Regional Service land use designation as defmed by the Daggett and Grigg Plan. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the Hollymead Community The following are some of the general recommendations made in the Comprehensive Plan for the Hollymead Community (i.e., the Development Area between the North and South Forks of the Rivanna River). The specific recommendations are provided below in italics. · "Hollymead is intended to be a mixed-use community that allows people to live in close proximity to their workplace, shopping and service areas. A wide variety of housing types, services, and jobs are anticipated. Community-wide automobile dependence shouM be reduced by encouraging transit-oriented development and providing a full range of pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as walkways and bike paths that connect the residential and transit nodes to the employment/shopping and service areas." Through their work with a Planning Commission subcommittee, the applicants have achieved a form of development and mixture of uses which is acceptable to the entire Commission. The proposals current form (Attachment N-5) creates a more walkable project that is integrated into rest of the Town Center. 'The application plan provides wide sidewalks in front of the stores. It extended sidewalks up the slope towards the remainder of the Town Center, including a series of stairs leading up to the Linear Park. The plan also proposes a street, Access Road B, which links to Area C. Finally, the plan provides for transit stops. Staff remains concerned with a several portions of the plan where the non-vehicle mobility can be improved. There are areas within the parking lots where the sidewalks do not fimction very well. The area around the outparcels is of particular concern. Additionally, the proposed bike lanes are along the major entry roads into the Town Center (i.e., Access Road A and Timberwood Boulevard) and do not enter into the shopping center. · "Provide linkage between neighborhoods within the Hollymead Community (including nonresidential areas) through the use of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, greenways/linear parks, roads, and transit alternatives. The emphasis is on linkage between development areas, not just within each development." Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 16 The applicants have worked with staff and the Commission to create "streets" within the shopping center that are intended to serve as conduits for pedestrians. Currently, Main Street connects the shopping center with the center of the Town Center. Hopefully, Main Street will become a lively, activity center for pedestrians as a result of other projects. Access Road B runs north from Main Street and provides a linkage between the shopping center and the shopping area in ZMA 01-20~ While it is questionable how enticing this area will be to pedestrians in its initial stage (as currently proposed), the applicants' infill concept calls for additional stores to line both sides of Access Road B. These additional stores should serve to create a more human-scale development and a better pedestrian orientation. Finally, the apphcation plan calls for a connection between the Linear Park, with its terminus at the Ridge Road (Access Road C), and the shopping center below. The application plan does not provide for pedestrian linkages between the Hollymead Town Center and the large residential communities on the other side of Route 29 (e. g., Forest Lakes North and Hollymead). "Preserve the stream valleys and their tributary drainage ways, plus adjacent areas of steeply sloping terrain, as an open space/greenway network. This network is designed to tie into future residential development areas in the Community and is to be located along the North and South Fork of the Rivanna and along Powells Creek from the southern portion of Forest Lakes North to the South Rivanna River." The proposed stormwater basin for Area A (ZMA 01-18) (Attachment C-5) will provide the stormwater projection for Area B (ZMA 01-19). This stormwater basin encroaches into Powells Creek's the 100-foot stream buffer. This encroachment will negatively impact the stream and the greenway proposed along the stream in the CPA. · Zoning action and development of the 50 acre Regional Service area (part of the Town Center) ... shall only occur after the development of the Urban Density residential area (The Forest Springs Mobile Home Park) has more than 100 dwelling units. The Forest Springs Mobile Home Park has more that 100 dwelling units. · "Developmentplans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway." In addition to this recommendation, the Planning Commission has requested that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide comments prior to public hearings for rezonings and special use permit requests when an application is in the Entrance Corridor. The applicants' rezoning and two special use applications were reviewed by the ARB on November 18, 2001. The ARB's action letter enumerated a series of concerns. However, their review was prior to the Commission's worksessions in December and January on Area B. As a result of the Commission worksessions and the ARB's comments, the applicants altered the application plan. Unfortunately, the ARB has not reviewed current application plan (Attachment N-5). Therefore, there is no updated ARB recommendation for current rezoning application plan. Con£ormity with the Community Facilities Plan The Community Facilities Plan proposes locating: Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 17 · A police substation in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area to reduce response times to the northern urbanized portion of the County. · A joint fire/rescue station in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area to reduce response times and increase fire and rescue capabilities to the northern urbanized portion of the County. · A library branch in or near the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area to serve the northern urbanized portion of the County. The scale and intensity of this proposal, as well as the others within the Town Center, will dramatically increase the need for these facilities. No arrangements have been made to locate these facilities within this portion of the Town Center by these developers nor have these developers offered to contribute towards the creation of these facilities. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan There are no environmental features identified in the Open Space Plan in this portion of the Town Center. As mentioned above, the stormwater basin for this project will impact Powells - Creek's stream buffer and the greenway trail system proposed along side of it (See ZMA 01-18's first application plan Attachment C-5). Finally, the applicants will need a critical slopes waiver before approval of a site plan. No critical slopes waiver has been requested at this time. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model Below staff assesses the Area B's ability to meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Staff's assessment will not cover the building or street layouts because the Commission has already provided comment to the applicant on these items at previous worksessions. Instead, staff will comment on whether the application plan meets the goals set forth by the Commission at these worksessions. Pedestrian The four outparcels are still poorly connected to the rest of the shopping Orientation center/Town Center. There is a sidewalk along Access Road A and a sidewalk down one side of "Main Street" as it passes through the parking lot. Staff recommends adding another sidewalk to the other side of Main Street and providing sidewalks along the drive aisle that provides access to the outparcels from Access Road A. Neighborhood While the applicant ha~ provided some street trees, staff recommends that Friendly Streets and the applicant provide additional trees in front of the stores. There is the Paths need to add more trees along Access Road B, Main Street, and in front of Anchor B. These areas are intended to be streets and therefore should be lined with street trees. Next, staff would like the applicant to commit to adding any additional buildings along Access Road B and/or Main Street. With buildings flanking both sides of these streets, they might eventually provide the sense of spatial enclosure which is a key element of this principle. Finally, the applicar/t should commit to increase landscaping along Route 29 to screen the large surface parking lots. The application plan proposes a single tree every 50 feet with bushes along the edge of the parking lots. However, this concern will be address through further review of the Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 18 : application bythe ARB. Interconnected The application plan reflects the CommisSion's expectations. Streets and Transportation Networks Parks and Open There is a single open space within this proposal. It is at the comer of Space Access Road B and Main Street. Staff questionS the logic of an open space in this location. First, it does not rectify a concern expressed by the Commission to shield Main Street from the rear of Anchor Store B (the proposed grocery store) with a building. Second, it is poor planning to place an open space adjacent to a dumpster and a loading dock. Finally, at approximately 60 feet by 60 feet, it is too small. The application plan also proposes a small, somewhat barren plaza at the end of Main Street. While this area will serve the patrons of the two outparcels, its current design will not serve to attract other users. ' Neighborhood The shopping center is exclusively retail. The commission has signaled a Centers ' willingness to accept the lack of other uses within the shopping center. Buildings and Spaces 'The shopping center consists of long, unbroken buildings and large surface of Human Scale parking lots. This form of development will not provide buildings or spaces of human scale. The developers have argued that futm'e infill will create a ' more human scale development. Staff believes that the developer should commit to a feasible infill strategY. Relegated Parking The application plan does not relegate parking. Mixture of Uses The application plan does not provide a mixture of uses. A mixture of uses should be achieved through other portions of the Town Center. Mixture of Housing The application plan does not provide any residential uses. Types and Affordability Redevelopment The principle of redevelopement, usually focuses ~on the reuse of existing structures. In this case, there are only one home and a used car dealer on this site and a analysis of the redevelopment of these structures is not . . practical in this context. However, .because the CPA calls for projects to .allow for the possibility ofinfill over time. Staff has analyzed this project ability to infill over time. .The developers have stated that furore redevelopment will provide many of the Neighborhood Model design feature that .are lacking from the current proposal. Staff feels that the developers should commit to some sort of infill strategY at this time in order to ensure that future redevelopement of this site will achieve a more dense,.walkable development pattern. Site Planning that It is still staff's professional opinion that the applicant's choice to orient the Respects Terrain entrance of Anchor A (Target) perpendicular to the contours and then to allow for only a 1.25% rise in slope across this entrance adversely affects Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 19 this proposal's ability to design with respect to the existing terrain (Attachment S-5). As a result of this choice and others, the proposed grading plan for ZMA 01-19 adversely affects the remainder of the Town Center. For example, in order to keep Main Street at just under a 7% grade, the conceptual grading plan calls for cutting 25 fe~t off the ridge. Staff understands that the depth to bedrock is approximately 20 to 25 feet. Staff is concerned that if bedrock is encountered, the grade of Main Street will have to be increased. Clear Boundaries The proposal does not have a common boundary with the Rural Areas with the Rural Areas Conformity with the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) sets forth the development goals for approximately 180 acres situated west of Route 29 and south of Airport Road (See Vicinity Map - Attachment F-5). The CPA provides a series of specific recommendations and references a master plan developed by the Daggett and Grigg Architecture firm (Attachment G-5). The CPA's specific recommendations ranged from descriptions of uses and densities within certain land use districts, to implementation of the Neighborhood Model principles, to illustrative examples of how the Neighborhood Model principles should be implemented, to listing the expectations for associated transportation improvements. The degree to which ZMA 01-19 meets the goals of the CPA is assessed in other parts of this report and will not be repeated in' this section. However, the following specific criteria from the CPA that have not been addressed directly within this report will be covered in this section. These criteria are in italics below: · Largeparking areas shouM be divided into smaller components using travel ways and median breaks with and other landscaping material used to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of The application plan should make more of an effort to break up the surface parking lots with landscaping (Attachment N-5). Currently, there are only two rows of trees in front of Anchor A (Target) and 20 rows of parking. If the applicants reduced the amount of retail square footage or used a combination of some mnlti-floor retail, space could be freed up for more green space. · Establish a landscape edge on the east side of the Town Center along Route 29 consistent with the ultimate design of Route 29 (urban or rural cross-section design) generally contemplated in the Master Plan. The County and VDOT have not resolved the question of ultimate cross-section design for Route 29. Therefore, staff cannot yet address this criterion believe that the applicant. · Space shall be made avciilablefor a recycling center (not counted against square footage limits). No recycling center has been proposed. · Exemplary specimen or old growth trees that may exist in this area should be preserved to the practicable. · Area landscaping shall minimize water requirements. · Principles of sustainable design shouM be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 20 use of natural lighting within buildings, and energy efficiency. Both Areas A & B were recently logged. Therefore, there are not trees left on the site. The applicant has not addressed ways to minimized water usage or implemented the principles of sustainable design. ANALYS~S OF THE. REZONING REQUEST Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicants are requesting a rezoning to PD-MC. The intent statement in Section 25A of the Zoning Ordinance for PD-MC district is as follows: "PD-MC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning map to permit development of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned approach. It is intended that PD-MC districts be established on major highways in the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. In recognition that such large-scale development may substantially reduce the functional. integrity and safety of public roads if permitted with unplanned access, it is intended that multiple access to existing public roads be discouraged and that development and access be oriented toward an internal road system having carefully planned intersections with existing public roads." When reviewed against the intent statement, this proposal is in keeping with part of the intent for the district. It is a large-scale commercial area that is being created under a unified planned approach. The applicant has not committed to a mixture of uses, but it can be argued that Area A will provides the mixture of uses. Finally, it is on a major highway in the Development Area and limits its access to Route 29. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ROADS On February 11, 2003, Staff supplied the Commission with a report on the impacts of the Town Center proposal on the external public road network (Attachment 1-5). This attached staff report covered Route 29's current conditions, the scope of the traffic study, the roadway improvement that are recommended by the applicant, and provided the Commission with a range of general options for dealing with impacts. The staff report's basic conclusions were as follows: 1. As proposed, the Town Center will generate significantly more traffic than the current road infrastructure can manage. If the development is approved as proposed and is built- out at the rate proposed by the apphcant, the existing public road system will be heavily congested without significant road improvements. 2. While both the County and VDOT recognize the need to provide for transportation improvements in this area, neither the County nor VDOT have plans or funding to construct a the improvements recommended by the applicants traffic study at this time. 3. The improvements proposed by the applicant are negligible and inadequate to support the traffic generated by either Phase I or Phase II of the TIA. 4. If the applicants wish to advance the public sector's timetable for the improvements, they will most likely have to provide monetary support or some innovative public/private funding scheme will have to be created. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 21 5. Rural roads (Earlysville Road, Proffit Road, and Route 20) will be heavily impacted by these proposals. The Commission has not formally responded to the issues raised in that staff report because only three of the seven members of the Commission were present at the February 11th meeting. The Hollymead Owners Group has formally responded to the staff report with the attached letter (Attachment J-5). VDOT and County Staff have responded to the Owners Group's letter with the attached correspondence (Attachment K-5 and L~5). In summary, after reviewing the applicant's letter, both VDOT and the County feel that the applicants were given the opportuniW to customize the study so that its results would fairly, accurately reflect the potential impact of the proposed development. Even if VDOT and the County were to agree with the assertions in the applicant's letter, which we do not, the resulting traffic generated under the revised scheme would still necessitate costly road improvements and the fimding that is simply not in place at this time. Finally, both VDOT and County staffs have been unable to complete their review of Phase III of the traffic study. The aim of Phase III is to properly size the Town Center's internal streets and determine the amount of right-of-way that should be reserved for possible grade separated crossings/intersection of Timberwood Boulevard and RoUte 29. WATER AND SEWER There is sufficient capacity in both the existing water and sewer mains to accommodate this development. Water and sewer service is provided on a first come, first served basis. The urban area water/sewer system capacities are shared with the City of Charlottesville and the City has equal access to the excess capacity in the systems. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The applicant has provided a stormwater strategy for the shopping center area, the basin is shown on the first application plan for ZMA 01-18 (Attachment C-5). Staff has identified the problems with this basin and its encroachment into the stream buffer. The County's Water Resources Manager has also asked all of the Town Center applicant's to utilize stormwater management strategies and techniques that would manage stormwater closer to its source (i.e., infiltration ditches, etc.). It does not appear that these techniques are being applied in this proposal. SCHOOZS Students from this development would attend Butler Baker Elementary, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Staff has not assessed impacts to the school system. FISCAL IMPA CT A fiscal impact analysis has been performed for the Area B. Since retail uses are exclusively proposed, the fiscal impact analysis is unsurprisingly positive. It is estimated that the County would be $208,000 dollars better off approving ZMA 01-19 than denying the proposal (Attachment Q-5). Anticipated impact on cultural, and historic resources No impact is eXpected on cultural or historic resources. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 22 Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundin§ properties Aside fi:om the unmitigated traffic impacts, staff does not believe that the impacts to adjacent properties will be significant because the other Town Center rezoning applications surrounds the proposal. Public need and justification for the change The Hollymead Town Center represents one of the few large, consolidated areas of undeveloped land within our community's Development Area. Since there are relative few of these "greenfield" sites left, staff believes that these types of sites should be developed in a careful, considerate manner consistent, to the extent possible, with the Neighborhood Model principles. Staff is concerned that this proposal represents a type of development that is.more typical of the character of development that has occurred over the last thirty years along Route 29. Staff has encouraged the developer to develop a more Creative proposal that more efficiently uses the land and creates a more urbanized form, such as the form envisioned in the NeighbOrhood Model and the Hollymead Town Center CPA. So far, the developer has either been unwilling to do so or' the local economic conditions are not yet ripe for him to do so. Also, in 2001, the County's Fiscal Impact Planner performed an analysis on the ability of the local and regional market to support additional commercial square footage. Its conclusions were that the area could support an additional 1.5 million Square feet of retail space in the next 10 years. Recently, the County has received three major proposals to increase the commercial square footage in the Route 29 corridor. The entire Hollymead Town Center's proposes a total of 1,077,000 million square feet of retail. The Albemarle Place proposal, at the comer of Hydraulic and Route 29, proposes 807,294 square feet of retail space. And, the North Pointe proposal, which is further north of the Hollymead Town Center development, proposes 522,592 square feet retail space. Together, these three projects propose to add 2,406,886 square feet of new retail square footage. While it is recognized that full build-out of these projects will take a number of years, these developers have not offered a phasing plan and together they exceed of the County's estimate by roughly 0.9 milhon square feet. This is in advance of the other by-right or retail rezoning proposals that can be expected to considered over the next 10 years in other parts of the County. Good economic planning would suggest that the market should not be oversaturated with excess commercial space. Good land use planning would suggest that needed regional-scale commercial space be built first at the core of the population center rather than on its fringes. Good transportation planning would suggest that regional-scale development should be located where existing infi'astmcture is already in place and/or where scarce transportation funding can provide the most beneficial improvements to the entire road network. Finally, good urban planning would suggest that the County favor projects that best provide the form of development espoused in the Neighborhood Model. In summary, if the County declines to rezone the properties in ZMA 01-19, and the properties are developed by right under their RA/HC zoning, the resulting 5 homes and 11 acres of Highway Commercial development on the 24.7 acres under consideration would be an inefficient use of this land when viewed in the light of the Development Area strategy adopted by the County. However, if the County does approve the ZMA 01-19 as proposed, with its shopping center's conventional suburban form, then the resulting form of development will continue a pattern that Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 23 recently adopted County land use policies say we want to move away from. Additionally, with the existing transportation system incapable of reasonably supporting this proposal, and with no plans or funding in place to increase the transportation network's capacity, approval of this project will lead to heavily congested roads in the northern portion of the County. For these reasons, staff does not believe there is a public need or justification for this proposal at this time and at this location on Route 29. ANALYSIS OF TI-IE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS The applicant's special use permit requests for two drive-through windows (SP 01-63 and SP 01- 64) have been reviewed against Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below. It is important to note that the applicants have not defined which uses the drive-through windows will be associated with. (It is generally assumed that SP 01-63 is associated with a bank and SP 01-64 is associated with a fast food restaurant.) Will the use be of substantial detriment to adiacent property? From the perspective of the uses themselves, it is not anticipated that the drive-through window will have a negative impact on the surrounding shopping center. The County's Architectural Review Board (ARB) has reviewed the drive-through for impacts to the adjacent Entrance Corridor, Route 29. The ARB has made the following recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: The ARB can support the request for the drive-through for the bank. The ARB cannot support the request for the restaurant drive-through at this time. When the issues regarding the appearance of drive-through related signs/equipment are resolved, a positive recommendation may be forwarded. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? While the applicant has not defined the specific uses associated with the special use permit applications, commercial uses with an associated drive-through window usually do not negatively affect the character of the shopping center. However, staffand the ARB have suggested that the applicant move the uses more internally to the site where the impact on the Entrance Corridor would be reduced and pedestrian accessibility improved. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? If the concerns with the ARB can be resolved, then the drive-through can be harmoniously integrated into 'the shopping center. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? If the concerns with the ARB can be resolved, then the drive-through canbe harmoniously integrated into the PD-MC district. However, staff has suggested that the applicant move these uses more internally to the site where they would be more accessible to pedestrians. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations for drive-through windows provided in Section 5.0. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? HoIlymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 24 There is nothing unusually hazardous or objectionable about the uses. SUMMARY FOR REZONING REQUEST (ZMA 01-19) Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The shopping center has a positive fiscal impact to the County. 2. The applicant has altered the building layouts in an effort to meet.the Commission's concerns. Staffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The application plan (Attachment N-5) fails to adequately provide for the following items which are called for in either the Neighborhood Model, the Hollymead Town Center CPA, or were asked for by the Planning Commission dUring their previous worksessions: a. The following specific pedestrian orientation items are still lacking from the proposal: i. A sidewalk should be provided down the entire northern length of Main Street, ii. Sidewalks should be provided along the drive aisle that provides access to the outparcels from Access Road A to provide interconnectivity between these uses. b. The proposal lacks street trees in the front of the stores along Access Road B, Main Street, and the drive aisle in front of Anchor B. c. The bike lanes are limited to the major road outside the shopping center (Access Road A and Timberwood Boulevard) that runs along the exterior of the area. The application plan should provide for better bicycle access to the interior of the project. d. There is no pedestrian linkage across Route 29 to the residential areas to the east. e. The plan does not effectively use vegetation to break up the parking lots. f. A single, poorly designed, poorly situated green space is provided within the shopping center area. g. The proposed plan layout still necessitates a significant amount of grading. The amount of grading and the impacts to adjoining parts to the Town Center could be lessened with a more creative redistribution of uses. 2. The current arrangement of buildings creates a development that is automobile-centric, and is not at a human scale, and does not create a sense of spatial enclosure. The applicants have stated that infill will eventually create a more human-scale development, relegate parking, provide a mixture of uses, create a better streetscape, etc. However, the applicant has not committed to an infill strategy that would put this future vision in place. 3. The stormwater management basin, located in Area A (ZMA 01-19), encroaches into Powells Creek Water Protection Ordinance 100-foot buffer and disrupts the ability to provide a greenway trail in that area. HolIymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 25 4. The applicant's proposal will increase the demand for public services, such as a police and fire stations or a library. If this application is approved, it will advance the County's timetable for providing these essential services. However, the applicant has not offered anything to offset the increased demand. 5. The ARB has not reviewed the most recent submission of the application plan for ZMA 01-19. Therefore, there is not an updated recommendation on this proposal for the Planning Commission and Board. 6. The existing transportation infrastructure will not support the development proposed 'for the entire Town Center. Furthermore, the applicant has not offered to offset the negative traffic impacts associated with his proposal nor have they demonstrated that their portion of the overall Town Center can be supported by the existing road network in the absence of the other proposals. 7. The applicant's proffered transportation improvements (Attachment 0-5) are improvements that could be required as part of a site plan review and do not represent an appreciable contribution that would offset the traffic impacts generated by their proposal. 8. Review of Phase III of the traffic study has not been completed. SUMMARY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS REQUEST (SP 01-63 & SP 0-64) Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to these special use permit requests: 1. The ARB has recommend supporting the drive-through for the bank on an earlier submission of an application plan for ZMA 01-19 Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to these special use permit requests: 1. The ARB has not reviewed the most recent application plan submittal for ZMA 01-19 and the applicant has added an additional two outparcels adjacent to the bank and the fast food restaurant. This may affect the ARB's recommendation. 2. The ARB could not recommend approval of the fast food restaurant on an earlier submission of an application plan for ZMA 01-19 because there were too many outstanding issues. RECOMMENDED ACTION After reviewing the application for ZMA 01-19, staff believes that there are too many outstanding or unfavorable items associated with this request. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time. After reviewing the applications for SP 01-63 and SP 01-64, staff has determined that additional information is required as well as further review by the Architectural Review Board. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval at this time. (Please note that if the application for ZMA 01-19 is not approved, then the special use permit applications cannot be approved because the zoning will not be in place to support the commercial uses.) Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 26 ATTACHMENTS (Please note.that this staff report has been edited to remove information that is not pertainant to Area B. Attachments strickent through have not been included in this version of the BOS packet.) A-5. B5. C-5. D5. E5. F-5. G~5. H-5. I-5. J-5. K-5. L-5. 3,/1' ,g N-5. 0-5. P-5. Q-5. The portions of the Town Center under consideration m this report ZMA 01-18 first application plan Vicinity Map The Daggett and Grigg Plan from CPA 98-03 Conceptual grading plan for the entire Town Center February 11, 2003 Staff Report on Hollymead Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis Hollymead Town Center Owners Group's response to February 1 lth Staff Report VDOT's letter responding to the Owners Group's response County Engineering Department's letter responding to the Owners Group's response ZMA 01-I 9 application plan Proffers for ZMA 01-19 Building elevations for selected stores. Fiscal Analysis for ZMA 01-19 Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance County Engineering Departments Comments on the conceptual grading plan Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing Staff Report for Area B 27 ATTACHMENT 02-02 ZMA C Tax Map Legend ~#1 tt CPA Boundary ~ ZMA Areas i ~ ZMA Areas under f ~ consideration at '"\H°llymead~-°llymead-rd/ 02/27/2003 11:42:08 AM this public hearing \ t I I / ~ / I " 1 "".. 14, ooc ATTACHMENT l_StO~~ 1-~TO~Y RETAIL 1-STORY - ~-S~ L ''- 8,1~0 ~0~_~ ~ 10,800 SF RE[AIL . .. ,~E~ '~. = 535 ~L ~ FFE, = 538 5,~0 SF -,. .. ' N \ ! ! ! ! / ? II 1t ,I/ /// i l iI / / ! t I I I \ I \ ! ", ! I / / / 1 ! I ;I I [ /// i/ i/ t I 1 I / / / / \ \ 2,~STORY 'RETAIL X, / 15o,ooo ~ --" \\;/ UFE. = 53,~',,_ 7x LFE. = 519 " [515 / ~ """" \ ,..' ~ \ / / \ :' , \ / t / '",: ~ "~ ._ / .: \ ! / / ..- \... ~ // / '/"--.~, ,.j..-' .- .-" ! / X / I ;~., , ! ....r \ l-STORy "-J i /'" '" · \,. iR, oEoToA LS~.I [".-':'"--_ I_.-ST.O..R-Y'"RET¢t~" .."' J.'-"""~J .."-STORY ., ~ ~ '-r2,5oo sP .-' i ~.--1- , J I J ' ] .. FFE. ~/,~35/'. ~-[~ FFF...a,'?5. ~ 5~5 [.,-- ~ .// ,~P~F.. 525, ~ '~?/// [/ , / ] / I /! z I! 2~o' to No; Airport .,." -? /!// //i/ 17 49.1' Springs 49k 32. 46-4 46-6 46 - 29B Vicinity Map % CPA Boundary ZMA Areas ...\Hollymead\hol~ymead.rdl 03/04/2003 05:35:15 PM PLAN , PARK8 & OPEN SPACE SYST~/I /REGIONAL SERVICE tCO~TY SERVICE /SITY RESIDENTIAL ATTACH~qBN ~ ~ -~ U S ROUT~E 29 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN \ //\~ ../ KSESSION DANTE: MICHAEL BARNES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 lter, Area A lter, Area B lter, Area C ~ter, Area D - Applicant, United Land Corp. - Applicant, Dierman Reality/Regency Centers - Applicant, The Virginia Land Company - Applicant, The Kessler Group Id four worksessions on the Hollymead Town Center. These gu and the master plan layout. This worksession will focus on [ic roads and the potential mitigation options for those impacts. 5fic Impact Analysis (TIA) recommends a significant amount of .anes and new traffic signals in order to accommodate the dd like the Commission to review the proposed improvements :eeping with the County's long-term goals. Secondly, staff iew several approaches for funding the proposed improvement ted by the Town Center. ~en the North and South Fork of the Rivanna River experiences ,evel of Service~ (LOS) during the morning and evening peak he Airport Road intersection has a LOS F (Attachment A-4). In 'n Center, Route 29 experienced an annual average of 43,000 e Hollymead Town Center to add an additional 28,025 average !) and 39,330 ADT in 2008 (Phase II, which is full buildout) experiences a relatively high number of accidents (Attachment be related to the hilly nature of this stretch of Route 29, which ~ature standards. the public road networks within the area effected by the .ntersection within five miles that experiences an increase of ,ecause of trips related to the project.) :ts from future growth that is not related to the Town Center ;lossary of traffic study related terms. 3. The projected traffic impacts related to the four rezoning proposals currently under consideration by 2005 and suggested improvements to mitigate these impacts. This scenario is considered "Phase I" of the traffic study. (See the improvements required to mitigate the Phase I impact colored in blud and yeilow on Attacl~ent F-4) 4. The projected traffic impact of the Town ~enter at full build-out and suggested improvements to mitigate these impactS. This scenario is considered "Phase II" of the traffic study. (See the improvements colored in orange on Attachment F-4) 5. The capacity requirements for the internal~own Center road network ("Phase 111")2. 6. The mitigation potential of grade-separated interchanges on Route 29 which are called for in the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment ("Phase IV")2. Attachment C-4 provides the estimated trips generated by the four proposals under review (Phase I) and by the Town Center at full build-out (Phase [I). In Phase I, of the "external trips" (i.e., trips that are made to and from the Town Center on the existing public road network), the residential uses generate 13%, the non-retail/non-residential uses generate 4%, and ihe retail uses constitute 83%. In Phase II, of the external trips, the residential uses generate 18%, the non- retail/non-residential uses generate 18%, and the retail uses constitute 64%. A majority of these trips will use Route 29. The remaining trips Will impact intersections in the Rural Areas, such as Proffit Road and Route 20 and several intersections along Earlysville Road. The TIA's conclusion recommends a significant amount of improvements (TIA Conclusions - Attachment D-4 & Roadway Improvements - Attachment F-4)~ These improvement include: · An additional four through-lanes on Route 29from just north of Airport Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River (thereby increasing the existing 4-lane section to an 8-lane section) and three additional through-lanes betWeen the South Fork and Rio Road (thereby increasing the existing 8-lane section to an 11-lane section): · An additional lane on Rio Road including a triple left on southbound Route 29 at the Rio Road intersection; · A major reconstruction and widening of Airport Road2; · A turn lane and new traffic signal at Route 20 and Proffit Road; · A new traffic signal at Earlysville Road (Rt. 743) and Dickerson Road (Rt. 606); · A new turn lanes at the Earlysville Road and Reas Ford Roads (Rt. 660); · A new traffic signal at Earlysville Road and Woodlands Road (Rt. 676); and, · Additional turning lanes at the Earlysville Road/Hydraulic Road intersection. While a portion of these improvements result from e, xisting and/or increases due to background traffic, a significant portion of impact can be attributed to the traffic demand generated by the 2 Please note that the applicants and staff are still reviewing Phases III and IV of the TIA. Findings from these later phases of the study will brought to the Commission at a fumr~ date. 3 The Airport and Proffit Road Widening Projects are the only~ improvements in the vicinity that are slated for construction in the Six-year Secondary Plan. :ations- T£A review bIollvmead, Town Center VI.r, - suo~.Wa!lddV gu~.uoza~t aalUaD umo2 pvavU~CllOH ma~av.~ rid, - au°:~"~:l~'=r ~'": .... a ..... ~, ...... ,~ ~ ...... , ,, .luomdolon,p lqg.u-Aq ~ xoj mid ol.m ~ jo 1.md s, oxmboz plno~,{lunoD oql ptm J.OGA l~ql sluomonoxdm.t 0¢ ol ~zu.m.m o:m szuomonoxdm~, oSOgl. -'(l,-~I luomqomlV uo onlq otI1 oas zo suo.~mq.muoo ~s.q loj ~-~ ~uourqoml¥ o08) 625 olno}I uo sore31 mnljo so.uos ~ ptm :mluoD u~oL oql ol [~molu[ sp~o:[ Otll lomlsuoo ol posodo:[d AlUO o~q s~odoloAOp ~muoD umo& p~ourgilIoH o¢ 'omi1 s.rql 1¥ · i, sodoad s.rtll tuo:j gU!llnso~ smoll~d uo!lnq.uls!p luoJ~no o'41 u.~ o~tmqo pm :mluoD m,aoj~ p~ou, KIIOH Otll :[oj posodoxd sosn jo ,4u~m ~Inm. l-md ost likely be some combination of these six approaches, staff ase I without a transportation solution in place. Staff believes Yastructure afterwards" would be the worst approach to take. . overwhelm Route 29 and the other Rural Area roads that lead teither the County nor the State have the funds to make these tic resulting from this project could congestion Route 29 for elieves that the project will need to be either phased, the icants will have to fund a significant portion of the ese rezoning are to be approved as currently proposed. :ted Signaled Intersections ~.eports Phase I and Phase II :nts ements (Attachment in color) ~ts on TIA er's Comments on TIA ~sportation StaffReport Decisions Chart for Commission's discussio/n,q In an attempt to focus discussions, staff has provided the following flow chart. IAre the recommended improvements in an acceptable form? Does the Public Sector have the necessary infrastructure improvements funded in the Six-year plan? outcome from the CHART Committee VDOT/County provides the transportation infrastructure  [County approves the ZMAs and1 ;~hopes to pay for the linfrastructure later. IWillthe developers provide' I ..../ County approves only those funding transportation [-------~T^"'~ ~ ZMAs that can be x~.~..- ccommodated by the existing improvements? '" a ' ' v Xk~ .~ infrastructure. \k, x"~[x The Hollymead Town Center is N '~ revised to reduce the amount of ~ > ~ ,retail souare footage Developer builds the square footage Iwhich is commiserate to the amount Iof improvements made by the [private and/or public sectors xk~ County approves all 4 ZMAs, but phases the development ,~tions - TIA revzew Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications - TIA review ~eeU!'l sluap!ooe · 01,0~ ~00~ 000~ -" ~ 966 [- 066 l, 996~ O~ O~ O9 O9 001. 091. /uo~s!H luep!ooV 6~ VI1 peetUXllOH eq3 u!q3!M pez/[leUe suoDoesJa~,Ul Peleu6!s peiOeleS Joj SO-I jo uos!JeduJoo CAL SUBMISSION - VOLUME 3 C IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT =.AD MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT "MARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~n - volume three - of the final Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) /mead development. This information contains the trip a conceptual site plan. This analysis is a revision to the ocated in the back pocket of the study, which illustrates a ,roposed Hollymead development. The p..lan shows the ~e of the building layouts on the entire site. The buildings 1 the first phase (2005) or the second phase (2008). For ~lysis, the buildings have been aggregated into separate nilar traffic patterns into and out of the site. The major ad network (Timberwood Boulevard, Access Road "A", )Ah-south road west of Access Road "C") provide the on of the access points for each land area that will be 12) analysis, as indicated by colored arrows. The key :ed are shown in dashed lines. The remaining access ysis inputs but will not be analyzed. The roadway links Ihe ends indicate possible future connections, based on ire traffic demand is analyzed. ,ill provide a total of 680 apartment units, 62,700 square :el, 695,931 sf of retail, a 3,650 sf drive-in bank, a 4,150 000 sf sit-down restaurant. When the site is built to its expected completion in Phase II, there will be a total of 1,350 apartment units, 196,750 sf of office, the hotel, a 16-screen cinema, 829,881 sf of retail and the bank, fast food, and sit-down restaurants. Average trips were Icalculated for the weekday AM, PM, and Saturday mid-day peak hour periods, as well as an average day, utilizing the methodology of the Institute of Transportatio~n Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. Refer to the Phase I site trip generation tabl!e, which details the projected amount and type of traffic that is anticipated for the development by 2005. The trips were broken down into primary trips, internal trips, and paSs-by trips. Primary trips are vehicles that are new to the road network. Internal, or capture, trips are made when a motorist has multiple trip purposes to a single site. While the initial trip impacts the regional road network, the other trips remain within the confines of the site. The methodology that was used to determine the amount of capture trips in this development is presented in the VDOT Land Development Manual It should be noted that the emboldened values on the table are the trips that will be assigned '~o the road network and presented in the volume 4 technical submission. Pass-by trips are trips that "currently" pass-by the site on the adjacent roadways but will turn into and out of the site when it is in operation in the future. A 15 percent pass-by rate has been established for this study baSed on .the VDOT standard, which were calculated after the internal trips were removed. Another type of trip that could be considered relevant to this study is diverted linked trips. These trips are "currently" on road links that are not adjacent to the site. When the site is in operation, these trips would re-route to other roadway links in order to enter and exit the site. Typically, these trips are not identified in TIA studies as the focus is primarily on the adjacent road network. In this study, there are several peripheral roadway links (Rio Road, Woodbrook Drive, Hilton Heights Drive)' that will be affected by diverted linked trips. However, in diScussions with VDOT personnel, it was brought to our attention that even though they recognize their possibility, VD~T policies for TIA studies does not allow SiTE TRIP GENERATION PHASE ! (2005) Weekday Weekday ~ty AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Total la3 D.U.'~ 55 287 342 259 128 387 300 8 43 51 39 19 55 45 I~ 47 244 291 220 10~ 329 128 127 _955 r00 sf 113 15 128 25 124 149 14 12 26 80 rooms 19 12 31 18 18 34 34 26 rd~ 132 27 159 43 140 183 48 38 86 ~-Eetail Trios 132 27 159 43 140 183 48 38 86 )31 sf ;50 sf 150 sf 100 sf Saturday Mid- Day Peak Hour Weekday In Out ADT 7;;' 22 23 ' 1,275 310 198 508 1,085 1,175 2,260 1,604 1,480 3,084 26 20 46 100 100 200 79 75 154 1,023 106 101 207 72 67 139 125 120 245 2,059 5 5 10 60 30 90 77 53 130 1,079 447 324 771 1,317 1,372 2,589 1,885 1,728 3,613 27,893 43 8 51 19 39 58 23 22 45 632 404 316 720 1,298 1,333 2,831 1,862 1,706 3,568 27,261 54 54 108 197 197 394 288 268 536 4,089 ail Td~s 350 282 812 1.101 1,136 2.237 1.594 1,438 3.032 23.172 :ialTdgs 482 289 771 1,144 1,276 2,420 1,8~2 1,47~ 3,!18 24.4471 [ TED 834 838 I 272 1,619 1,640 3,259 2,083 I 916 3,999 33.3781 )Y AREA 1,062 1,364 1.385 2,749 1.770 1.803 3.373 ~5~_.. 529 533 Weekday AM Peak Hour In Out Total 0.080 0.421 "0.502 :~.,.' ;: ?~'.:;:,.;',. .,.. .... ~. ,.-:.! ...'.,~ ,~? ~: . - , · ~' -- :..:;...-. :. ..... '-.,,.- 1.804 0.246 2.049 0.237 0.151 0.388 Trip Ratee Weekday PM Peak Hour In Out Total 0,381 0.188 0.569 0,406 1.980 2.384 0!230 0,204 0.431 ATTACHMENT Saturday Mid- Day Peak Hour Weekday · In OUt Total ADT 0,220 0.220 0.441 6.191 .- ."..:' - . ..: '-f.. ;-. ,.. '-,- ~.: - '~.,;.. '~.. ,r.'~.' ~-~-,"-'¢"."- . 0.223 0.190 0.413 14;789 0,419 0.329 0.748 4.345 0.445 0.285 0.730 1,558 1.688 3.247 2.304 2.127 4.431 34.102 7.073 5.557 12.630 27;385 27.385 54.770 21.512 20.668 42.180 280.22 25.429 24.431 49.860 17:410 18.070 33.480 30.04~ 28.866 58.934 496.12 0.405 0.405 0.810 5,018 2,472 7,490 8,384 4,436 10,820 89,950 e) 51 58 45 832 8 7 I 46 51 226 308 2,373 57 233 309 2,419 51 58 45 532 Ours"of ~e commercial. Therefore, ~eintemal ~p values are swapped. ~$ff'~ g~O'g O~g°O gOff'O SOff'O : OZO'9~ O~ff'Z; 098'6ff ~ff'ff~ 06g'~ ggt,'~ 6zg'o g9~'O : Z~8'~ 8/-,J--'~ 0~'~ s~g'o s~g'o 1;'0~'0 0~'0 8g~'O ~g~'O Z~'O gg~'L 6g~'0 ~g'L g6V0 0~'~ SBUO tno Ul JnOH ~lead ' ' Aep4ooj sm, e~l 66~'0 I~OJ. 6~P'0 OBO'O 1no Ul JnOH 4eed WY ~ep4aaM g~9'~ ~' L 9B gOO'g 689 ZB6'~ "'C gtrl~ 08g'~' Bt,8 O9 g9 :66'9 tz~g 9~"9 JOY ~epqe~M · peddaMs eJ~ senle^ d.u,, laWelU! eql 'ejo~eJeqj. 'le.mJeuJ,,,oo a~ jo ,,sCno,, eq~ peJep!suoo seM la.quep!seJ eql ¢o ,,s,uL, eq.L :e~ON 69~ ~Z tTg~ 9g gL gL 66~'~ 609'a g~t'~ O~S'~ §~'~ LZB'L ~Z6 668 gB;'l, 966'I, ?/L'? C69'6 LBP'I, ~t.O'L B~:£ 1,19 L~ L~ 09 i;,g 9~ ~Z ~g ZZ 06 O~ 09 OL g gl 6Z 00~ 00~ 00~ 9~ O~ 099'; 86Z'~ 8~'g OZS'~ ~'; ffg~ O~ ~:J~V Aaig/s O±/V~N Sdl~.L -IYJ. O.L QB.L~:4N:~9 SdI~.L 3J. IS 'IV.LOJ. sdu£ le!~etutuo::) MeN lelO.L SO~ ~ 6LZ 9ia? ~Z~ 0£S 09 ~0~ ~ · 6~Z g~¢ ~Z~ OZ~ 09 0~ g£ 00~ 6~8 ~g 6~8 88 Ag~ Z~ 6gg L~ g'l~ ~og 90g gg~ ggE 6~Z ZPE ~Og ~zg gg~ lzgC soul t!~eM ~Ew,ud le~olqns 7.g sdp.L/~q-ssed % g L 0~t~ sdlJ.L leN sdpj. pequ!'l pe3JaR!a % 0 09 sdpj. lemelul !,9~, sdpj. I!elebl I[qolqns g ts O00'~L LC8 9~' ts 099'E tdr~ js ~88'6~:g O~g 0 ~ sap.L I!em~-UON/ue~u.ud immqn$ - sd.u.L leuualul 0 ~C sdp,L I!maB-UON lelolqn9 01, sua~r~s 9L 61, stuoo~ OB OtB ~B~ ;s 0~Z'961. OLZ 96 ecl.uj, lel)UepleeM ~eN 1~ sdp£ lewelul 80~ S,'ll'a o~'~ o~'~ lueJnmse~/q!.lenO )tueB u.~^.ua emeu!O la~OH eoU~O slueu~ecN ~no Ul lelOJ. ~no Ul JnOH 4eed Xeo JnoH aeed fid -PllN AelUm, eS Aep4eeM lel. OJ. 1110 Ul .moll 4eed WV, Repaeej (BO0~) !1 3SVHd lllSUeO epoo 'n-I ash pueq lemand within the Hollymead Town Center study area, corridor, is considerable. Analysis of existing conditions of US 29 and Airport Road, for example, already operates 'ough traffic along US 29. Analysis of projected 2005 and ions (Hollymead Town Center traffic not included) indicate oposed Hollymead Town Center development, delays roughout the study area will only become more severe. it is apparent that improvements will be necessary to s-of-serviCe (LOS), particularly along US 29. With or ead development, US 29 is projected ..to require two ;ach direction, north of the South Fork Rivanna River hout the Hollymead Town Center development, several · lane groups are projected to experience LOS "E" or "F" f US 29 and the improvements committed to by the f projected Hollymead Town Center traffic, the follow,'ng ,endix B, will be needed in order to maintain the projected · affic conditions: the construction of northbound and eas Ford Road/Earlysville Forest Drive at the intersection ruction of a separate eastbound right-turn lane on Prof-fit Stony Point Road; the construction of an additional 29 at the intersection with Rio Road; and the installation ;tions of Dickerson Road and Earlysville Road, Airport rtysville Road and Woodlands Road, and Stony Point ~nsignalized intersections of US 29 with Lewis and Clark Reas Ford Road/Earlysville Forest Drive some of the forecast to Operate below the LOS C that VDOT has ,wever, traffic voiumes do not warrant installation of a traffic signal and the construction of additional approach lanes will not result in an improved lane group LOS. At the interseclions of US 29 with the Hollymead Town Center'accesses, some of the side street lance groups are forecast to operate below the targeted LOS with or without additional ir~.provements. However, with ali of the improvements listed above, the studied intersections are forecast to operate at overall LOS at or above the target LOS, and in many cases above the LOS projected to be experienced without any improvements and without the Hollymead Town Center development. Also as is shown in Appendix B, for Phase II traffic conditions the construction of an additional northbound left-turn lane on uS 29 at Timberwood Boulevard-will be necessary to maintain the overall target LOS. ~As is the case with the Phase I conditions, installation of additional improvements at the aforementioned intersections will not result in an improved LOS on the applicable lane gr~oups nor is signalization warranted at the unsignalized intersections. Further, the studied intersections with the mitigating improvements are forecast to operate at overall LOS at or above the target LOS, and in many cases above the LOS projected to be experienced without improvements and without the Hollymead Town Center development. :Su!~OllOJ a4~, o~, peq!wwoo aAeq s~edoleAep e4~, 'XlleOy!oeds '6g: SN 15UOle suop, oesJa~,u! o~ s~uaweAoJdw! u!eueo o~ ~,!wwo~ Ili~ sJadole^ep eq~, 'Ja~ueO u~ol peewXIIOH pesodoJd eq~ jo ~ed s¥ S.LN:JIAI:JAO~dlAII ~I-~clO-I~A:II"I 4~ ~ _~ ' ~ Proffit Road Existing Lane Configurations I ' --~ VDOT Improvements ~ Developer Improvements ' t:~'~ Mitigation Improvements (Phase 1) Mitigation Improvements (Phase 2) Existing Traffic Signal [~] VDOT Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Developer Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Mitigation Phase 1 Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Mitigation Phase 2 Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~ Existing Storage/95th Percentile Mitigation 555'I555' VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity 555'* Lewis and Clark Drive ATTACI-IIV~NT I '- ~ Hollymeade Multi-Use Development Roadway Improvements X ATTACHMENT I ..- ~ ::;.H ~:~?.~ ~~ ....... ..,....:-';'~ . ..~.~ ~ ~.~ff,;.% -¢~;~ .... , ':,:.~- ', ...... ;i~?=¢.:~ bare ;;"~¢%~'~')~~i¢~'~ ~',~:.. ::¢~'~"~::'-S'.~4E~i ' ' :~:,''' Existing Configurations .... ,~,~:~ ...... ~ -=~¢-*-.'~ Developer improvements ~,~. ~-, ~ . ~ :.'r" ~J~- -; '~'i~,,~ i-' ;'~ ~° ~f~d~i~"~ Mitigation Improvements (Phase 1) .~,_,~ ~,~:, ; .~:~,,.~ ~ Mitigation Improvements (Phase 2) :'a~ ~ -¢,. o :~, '~! "~ Existing Tra~c Signal .a-":h-'~",$i -- :~. ,-',"~¢i~;; "f¢~'il~;~' ~ :~r~?~-~ VDOT Traffic Signal (Proposed) ~;~*~'-'~'-~ Developer Traffic Signal (Proposed) :-3~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ;1~; M~tigation Phase 1 Tra~c 8icnal (Proposed) --.~¢,~.~ .-:,,~:~'~'-,, -.;,,,,~:¢.- · -, ,~¢.,. -u ... Mitigation Phase 2 Tra$c Signal (Proposed) ' ~.:~ ~A~14(' .,..i, ~- ;.... .~';*~*¢~",~: ..... ' ..... Existing Storage/96th Percentile Mitigation ~;~i VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity US 29 Hollymeade Multi-Use Development Roadway Improvements Not to Scale I Figure B-lC 6g 9N 6~ 8Fl VA Route 743 ........................... ATTACI-IMENT I --~ Rio Road Existing Lane Configurations VDOT Improvements Developer Improvements Mitigation Improvements (Phase ~) Mitigation improvements (Phase 2) Ex'sting Traffic Signal VDOT Traffic Signal (Proposed) Developer Traffic Signai (Proposed) Mitigation Phase ~ Traffic Signal (Proposed) Mitigation Phase 2 Traffic Signal (Proposed) Existing Stomge/95th Percentile M~gation VDOT or Developer Storage Capacity 5557555' 555'* Hotlymeade Mu~tJ-Use DeveJopment Roadway Improvements No~ ONWt ALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO'i-rESVILLE VA 22911 January27,2003 JAMES L BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Development nment on the Hollymead Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis and Associated (RKA). To date we have reviewed'the signalized chemes for roadway improvements. Is to major signalized intersections on US 29, the traffic study also intersections in the rural areas within a five mile radius of the pacts are briefly summarized below and presented in greater detail in se 1 of the proposed development (to be opened in. 2005) will 'S 29, from Airport Road to Rio Rd, 'by increasing delay time and d F. The level of service at the intersection of Hydraulic Rd. and d to F by traffic from phase 1 of the proposed development. By the dout year, traffic from the site will increase delays throughout the srsections to experience level of service E and F conditions. several unsignalized intersections on Eadysville Rd., from .~s well as the intersection of Route 20 and Proffit Rd.. The new Jnt, on US -9 at Holly Memorial Gardens, and on Airport Rd. at the Si0n, fail t° m%t the perfomance criteria for new signals Stiprdated ic study recommends a package of improvements that includes four ,Io Grounds Rd. to Akport Rd., three additional lanes on US 29 from two additional lanes on Rio Rd., and three additional signals in the ho plans to construct any of these improvements. The traffic study re needed regardless of whether 'the site is approved; however this ses or data. YDOT staff have also identified some technical errors .chment 6. -"IANSPORTATION FOR THE 21sT CENTURY ATTACHMENT I ""',~ Hollymead Town Center TIA Comments January 27, 2003 Page 2 of 22 Based on the impacts that the proposed Hollymead Town Center will impose on. the public transportation infrastructure, as identified by the Traffic Inapact Analysis Report, VDOT staff recommends that prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits for the proposed development, sufficient transportation infrastructure should be constructed to accommodate the traffic generated by the site. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc. Charles Martin cc. via email Glenn Brooks Juan Wade Attachements: A) Explanation of Terminology and Methodology B) Summary of Extent and Severity of Impacts to Public Infrastructure C) Graphical Comparison of Intersection Delays D) Detailed List of Impacts to Intersections E) Detailed List of Impacts to Lane Groups F) 'Unresolved Technical Issues in the Traffic Study 9~s'lmq3-mdgo p~ podJ!~' P^IIg pooa~q~',' N ,~0 peemAIIOH ,~(] ~Jel~tueO P^II] poo~,~eqm!l P~I liJ4OJd 9~;s'pqmo-mdso slqIt!eH UOll!H -I elOU~meS pAlfl N ,~0 peemAIIOH IAJ~ :e[u!~ 9~s'puBq+udgo PAI~] pooA~eqtuII Pa pod4~ P~] ~.J.J. OJd EOOU u~f IU :~uommoDJo lzodokI s.ts~I~u'v ~o~dmI oDJ~z& ':to~uo3 umo& p~omXI[oH :,oo[qnS oop's3uourmoo i~ra~ ~)1- O.l. P~OmAIlOH :oI.~R I0~i~ opj :~doO · s:uomutoo &O(J_A Auu o; uo)~pu ut ox~ s~uorataoo osoql pu~ 'omout s~ jo om-tS o~ ~ po&tooo~ uooq ~ou oA~q s;uourtuoo .I.O(IA ~u~ o;ou osuoki · uo!l~zopfsrroo sno.~os uo2t~.3 oq ol o~t!sumxo om Xi~OlO ox, s~uomo~oxdmj uo.~lu~.q.wa o~[~ mq 'lso~[ol~ zoj u~oqs s! ',,(pol~3g.q4I) 14 Po~quroo, poloq~I 'sluomo~tozrlm~. uo.tl~.q.m[ (oiq~.s~ojrq) oql ql.[~ I os~rkI 'luomdoloaop oqljo lo~dmj oql s~oqs ,(s~clmI DE) I ~I po~qmoD,, s~ ~ocloz oql m. popquI 'p~o~I ~xod.~. ol sluomo~to:tclm~, polnpoqos s,&O(IA q:~.t~ I °Sl~I:[E 'lUOlllttoIo~op oq:~ lnor[~[.~At s.t .pllrtoJJ~2~ol~[[, 'SOl~UOos I oseqff sno.l, rgA otB t[3nolq:~ pop. mo ':I~od I4I{t gOOi~ oql 'omB. ouo s~oqs ~ ooTx~os jo sio~toI orB Jo suo.Bofdop I~nsFt poppto~d ox~ po~to~ll~ ',l~p jo uo.B~lo;td, tol~ oql ~ dioq o& :sluoun~oo ~fu-[.~OliOJ orB sm[ luoml.mdo(I 3uF. oom.~e~t ~t~[l~IrIV ~IO ~&hlflOD ~emer, ~ ramc ~npact Analysis Report O03 Leve~ of Service Summary on R~. Phase 1 ~ackground time: PM Rio Rd. ~ntersecfion Rt. :29 B ~ C ~ ~ E ~ F ~ W accidents I i I ] 1995 2000 2005 2010 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road~ Room 218 Charlottesville, Virgi~3~a 22902-4596 (434) 296 -~823 Fax (434) 972- 4012 ATTACHMENTI--~' TO: FROM: REF: DATE: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner Juandiego R. Wade, Transportation Planne~ Hollymead Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) February 5, 2003 I have reviewed the revised TIA for HollymeadITown Center (HTC). I will focus my comments on how this project will impact the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transportation (CHART) Plan. The CHART Plan, which is currently being updated, is a comprehensive list of the region's transportation policies or projects recommended for development of further study. The CHART Advisory Committee is evaluating many transportation options along the Route 29 north corridor to support the County's Land Use Plan for the Hollymead CommunitT. These options include various parallel road facilities~ transportation demand management, widening, re- engineering roadways, and alternatives to the sihgle occupied vehicle. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO~, which staffs the CHART Plan, est/mates the new 2025 CHART Plan will be completed by summer 2003. Many of the mitigation improvements the applicant proposesI in the TIA are not included in the CHART Plan or the Six Year Secondary and Priimary Road'Priority Lists. Final decisions on road improvements should consider the CHA~T Plan recommendations. cc: Glenn Brooks Matt Grimes Klm Cameron Ramey Kemp & Associates of Richmond Transportation Enginee rs ATTACHMENT J- ~ February 24, 2003 Mr. Michael D. Barnes (~ounty of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Reference: Hollymead Development Subject: Response to the County Staff Report Dated February 11, 2003 Dear Mr. Barnes: As suggested in at the February 11th County Planning Commission worksession, we are providing responses to the staff's comments related to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for Hollymead, which include comments from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) staff. I. Trip Generation. The staff report commented that US 29 had 43,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2001 and that the Hollymead site will generate 39,330 new trips per day. The implication of this statement is that the traffic on US 29 would, increase approximately 91% to 79,330 vpd with the full build out of Hollymead as envisioned. In fact, the site traffic does not impact US 29 in the way that is being inferred by the staff's comment. This is a misinterpretation of the information contained in the TIA report and a misconception of how trip generation information is used in this type of analysis. The information contained in the TIA report documents reflects the VDOT policies that were imposed prior to implementing the study. The focus of these policies is to project delays at intersections and turning movement implications for projected development. The VDOT policies that were imposed did not employ a precise method for determining the actual number of trips entering and exiting the Hollymead project, as contemplated. The objective of the study was not to strictly determine an estimated number of vehicle trips to be generated on the surrounding roadWay. Rather, the rationale for the VDOT policies was to project trip generation in order to assure that the intersections and related approaches are conservatively designed. If the objective had been s~mply to project an estimated number of vehicle trips to be generated on the surrounding roadway, other more precise methods could have been employed. The methods of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), which have been developed using nationwide studies and are widely accepted in other jurisdictions, are more reflective of the trip making characteristics that can reasonably be expected to occur by this site in the future. A description of these methods is described below. II. Rates of Internal Trips. The TIA does not reflect real conditions affecting internal'trips within the Hollymead Town Center and therefore dramatically overstates the total new vehicle trips generated by the site. Recognizing internal, or "capture" trips is a means of measuring the vehicle trips which remain internal to the site and do not impact the external road network. 4435 Waterfront Drive, Suite 104 · Richmond, Virginia 23060 Phone (804) 217-8560 · Fax (804) 217-8563 ATTACI"IMRNT ..l-5 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Michael D. Barnes February 24, 2003 VDOT's policy for capture trips, allowed for only approximately 5.3% of the total daily Hollymead traffic, which was determined by adding the internal trips in the Phase II site trip generation table (1,234+0+1,234) and dividing by the total site trips (46,224). By contrast, under the ITE methods, approximately 16.8% of the total daily site traffic (2,813+1,148+3,816) is estimated to remain internal to the site and will not impact the external road network. Therefore, the TIA overestimates the new site trips that are assumed to take place in the future by 5,309 vehicles during an average day. The ITE method not only recognizes a higher percentage of inter-site interactivity between the residential and retail uses, but also recognizes interactions between the non-retail commercial and the residential and retail uses. VDOT's policy as implemented in the TIA does not recognize this level of interactivity between a mix of land uses of this type. Further. more, while the ITF: method is based on studies of multi-use developments throughout the nation, it is plausible that if the mixture of uses were optimized to those contemplated at Hollymead, the internal tdps could increase beyond the 16.8% and further reduce the actual future site traffic impacts to US 29 and other roadways. Ill. Rates of Pass-By Traffic. The TIA does not reflect real conditions affecting the projected rate of pass-bY trips Within the Hollymead Town Center and therefore overstates the total vehicle trips generated by the site. The VD©T policy imposed for pass-by trips, which are trips that are not new to the area and "currently" pass,by the site but would turn into and out of the site on the way to the traveler's primary destination, allow 15% of all retail trips (4,426). By contrast, again using the ITE methods, approximately 21% of the total general retail~ trips could be considered pass-by trips, which was calculated using the linear regression formula on page 43 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. The pass-by trips at fast food restaurants have been shown to have rates of 25% to 71% (page 51), quality restaurants 26% to 62% (page 47), and drive-in 5anks 15% to 64% (page 71). Therefore, it is defensible that by using !TE study data, this site could be expected to have approximately 25% pass-by trips. By reducing the rate from 25% to 15%, the TIA overestimates the new site trips that are assumed to take place in the future by 1,152 vehicles during an average day. IV. Rates of Diverted Linked Trips. The concept of diverted linked trips is based upon the recognition that significant, new retail projects will alter the current retail trip patterns in the region. In this case, it assumes that some number of trips that are oriented towards other retail centers currently would be expected to orient towards Hollymead in the future: Diverted linked trips may increase the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the site when the diverted trips are a distance away (such as Rio Road traffic). However, they are part of, and included within, the "current" traffic stream when they are passing by the site (such as to/from Ruckersville and Earlysville). A diverted linked trips rate of 15%, based upon ITE study, was proposed for the TIA in a preliminary site trip generation analysis.submission to VDOT. However, the diverted linked trip factor was removed altogether from the analysis at the nsistence of VDOT since their policy apparently does not recognize these types of trips. Therefore, the overestimates the new site trips that are assumed to take place in the future by 4,611 vehicles during an average day. ATTACHMENT Page 4 of 6 Mr. Michael D. Barnes February 24, 2003 recommendations do not reflect any judgment on the relative safety or suitability of these roads, even when impacted by the Hollymead project. It must also be noted that with ever increasing residential development in the rural regions of the County and the subsequent increases to the background (non-site related) traffic, these intersections would warrant attention for future improvements, whether this site is developed or not. VII. Parallel Road System. Regarding the parallel road facility, we concur with the staff's assessment that the TIA analysis did not consider a strategically important new road in place at the time that the site is built out (2008). Had we assumed such a parallel road, it is plausible to expect a significant amount of traffic demand relief for both US 29 and Rt 743. In the Phase III analysis, a portion of the parallel road facility, between UREF (using Lewis and Clark Drive) and Hollymead Drive North, was assumed. The Phase III analysis did indicate some relief to the Timerwood Boulevard and Airport Road intersections on US 29. However, we do not believe that Staff had reviewed this' portion of our submission for inclusiOn to their comments. The primary focus of the Phase III analysis was to identify the necessary transportation infrastructure internal to the site. VDOT has identified the need for alternatives to widening the existing roadways so that the traffic demand is disbursed to a greater number of facilities, such as the US 29 parallel road, the Western Bypass, Meadowbrook Parkway, as well as other new corridors. Any nUmber of new facilities would help to relieve the congestion on the currently limited ones. VIII Road Funding Sources. Staff's observations regarding Sources of funding for future road improvements, while thoughtful and informative, reflect more on the lack of broader policy- making for the region's transportation needs than provide meaningful consideration for this land use decision. One observation about the statement that an 8-lane US 29 would cost $100 million: We would point out that this cost factor depends upon the limits of the widening, actual conditions for which could alter these estimates dramatically. A further consideration may be that the improvements may not be needed beyond the immediate study area, since traffic projections were not made north of Lewis and Clark Drive. Widening needs will depend on the locations of the future residential development, which will be the impetus for significantly adding to the future traffic demand. The commercial development in Hollymead merely serves the needs of the expanding population base. There also was a suggestion to re-distribute the land uses within Hollymead. Please keep in mind that the TIA is based on the land use makeup contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and was based on lengthy discussions with the staff. Adjusting the values at this stage would be counterproductive in the rezoning process. While adjustments in the makeup may rationally increase the internal trip making characteristics of the site, the limitations imposed.by the VDOT policy (described above) will not allow these changes to be quantified to show this level of improvement in the technical documentation of the traffic performances. IX. VDOT Technical Comments. The remaining discussion involves the technical issues detailed in the VDOT comments (Exhibit F). As discussed at the Planning Commission worksession, we concur that many of these issues may or may not be errors or omissions to some ancillary aspect of the overall study findings, In some instances, they represent the ATTACHMENT j _~ Page 3 of 6 Mr. Michael D. Barnes February 24, 2003 Overall, the VDOT policies for conducting the TIA resulted in overestimating the amount of traffic by 11,072 per day from what can be reasonably expected to be new trips on the road network. While this method is recognized for "right-sizing" the infrastructure on their roadways, it is not correct to assume that it represents a precise measurement of the actual future traffic demand for this site. " In support of our position we 'refer you to the enclosed trip generation table, which utilizes the ITE methods. The supporting Handbook documentation and internal trips calculation worksheets are also provided. Based on this methodology, the site will generate 28,258 new trips on an average weekday. However, it is important to understand that these new site trips will be dispersed throughout the study area and do not impact any single roadway [ink on US 29 entirely. The percentage of site traffic on any road link of US 29 varies widely. For example, in the TIA trip distribution analysis, the direction in which the new site traffic would orient on the road network was determined. The distribution values used in the analysis were illustrated in TIA Volume 4, Figures 1R1, 1R2, lCl, and lC2. So, for example, south of Rio Road, approximately 24% of the new site traffic is projected to occur here (or approximately 6,782 vpd). Between the Rivanna River and Ashwood Road, approximately 40% is projected (or approximately 11,303 vpd). Between the Cemetery and Timberwood Boulevard site entrances, approximately 19% is projected (or approximately 5,369 vpd). North of Airport Road, approximately 17% is projected (or approximately 4,804 vpd). If it were assumed that 43,000 vpd is the current (2001) traffic demand .on each of these links (as purported in the staff comments), then it is defensible that the site will increase the traffic on US 29 between 11% and 26%, depending upon the particular link. Additionally, if the traffic grows 2.5% annually between 2001 and 2008 without the site in operation (or a 19% increase to 51,100 vpd), then the site would increase the future traffic conditions on US 29 between 9% and 22%. These values would be reduced even further if more internal and diverted linked trips'were assumed. The methodology presented here is an effort to clarify the implications of the operation of the site, not to refute the methods used in the TIA. The results cOntained in the TIA are still considered valid for the use in which they were developed. V. Traffic Accident Data. The traffic accident data presented in the staff report is deceiving. The report merely reports an increase in accidents over a time period during which traffic demand has steadily increased. It is rational to assume 'that any increases in traffic demand under the same roadway conditions would increase the possibility of the incidences of accidents. VI. Impacts on Rural Road Seqments. The staff report overstates and mischaracterizes the project's impacts on certain rural road segments. For example, the trip distribution analysis indicates that approximately 9% of the new site traffic (not including the diverted linked trips, which are expected to be significant) is oriented towards Rt 743 to the northwest. Additionally, approximately 5% is oriented towards Rt 767 to the west, 6% to Rt 20 to the northeast, and 4% to Rt 20 to the southeast. The 'mprovements recommended for the intersections at these road sections reflect the objective of VDOT's imposed higher performance levels for the TIA. The ATTACHMENT Page 5 of 6 Mr. Michael Do Barnes February 24, 2003 limitations of the modeling process. responded to herein. There were two issues, however, that are being A. Synchro Model. Regarding the fatal errors in the Synchro Model, this was discussed with VDOT staff prior to receiving their comments. The errors refer to the animated simulation portion of the analysis, which may be useful 'for graphic presentations but does not affect the ?esults of the study. It should be noted that VDOT provided the basic model for the analysis on this project. The simulation errors were a result of the initial VDOT model setup, not in the approach method of the TIA. B. Additional Lanes to Rou[e 29. VDOT challenges the assertion that two additional through lanes would be needed in each direction on US 29, north of the river, without the site. This matter was clarified in a letter to the County Planning Department dated January 30, 2003 and is based on the County's and VDOT's desire to achieve Level-of-Service (LOS) "C" overall and on all traffic movements. While the analysis was performed supporting this assertion, we recognize that the technical' information was not provided. It is being presented herein, along with additional analysis results that were requested by the County staff. X Additional County-Re. quested Sensitivity Analysis of Discrete Roadway Segments. The County staff has requested that an additional analysis be undertaken to assess what portion of the total roadway improvements could be attributable to general background growth. This analysis follows the methods used to determine the mitigating improvements that were noted in the TIA by determining what improvements would reduce the delay values on the movements to below the existing traffic values at certain key intersections. Tables that summarize the analyses - support for.the report's background traffic needs assertion and the County's background mitigation analysis - are provided herein. It should be noted that only the key intersections north of the river (Ashwood Drive, Hollymead Drive North, Timberwood Boulevard, and Airport Road/Proffit Road) during the most critical period (PM peak hour) were analyzed and summarized. In summary, the background traffic increases can be mitigated with turn lane improvements at the intersections in 2005. No improvements are needed at the Ashwood Drive intersection as it does not appreciably degrade by this time frame. In 2008, in order to mitigate projected growth in the background traffic, a third northbound through lane would be needed for all four intersections. Again, these improvements would be needed to maintain the current performance levels, which are less than the VDOT preferred performance levels. When these improvements are assumed and a third through lane is assumed in both directions in 2005, the overall performance levels are satisfactory. However, individual movements are still deficient. This is typical on heavily traveled roadways with no other possible alternative routes to disburse traffic and reflects the limitations of the modeling. This was brought [o the County and VDOT's attention early in the TIA scoping process. The same type of results are indicated when a fourth lane is assumed in 2008. One last aspect that was discussed in the worksession but was not noted in the comments is the possibility of a lesser standard of performance. All jurisdictions are faced with weighing the merits of an efficient road network with the costs associated with providing ATTACI-IMENT j -~ Page 6 of 6 Mr. Michael D. Barnes February 24, 2003 improved infrastructure. Highway improvement costs increase tremendously when faced with utilities adjustments and right-of-way acquisition, as well as maintenance of traffic during construction. As an alternative to increasing the laneage on the affected road links, a strategically-located new road may be a better use 'of funds. Two Or four lanes on a similarly aligned roadway can essentially replace the need for additional travel lanes on the deficient road links. However, such new roads are only useful when they prOvide a substantial reduction ib travel time. The US 29 parallel road contemplated; within Hollymead would have a greater impact to relieving the travel demand on US 29 if it were continuous between Lewis and Clark Road and south of the Rivanna River to Berkmar Drive. The Western Bypass, as considered by VDOT, is also a viable alternative for congestion relief to the US 29 corridor. In other jurisdictions, while LOS "C" is desirable, the standard for acceptable performance is often LOS "D" or even "E" overall. Typically these reflect analysis results along heavily traveled corridors during the peak hours where the costs for improvements are well beyond the ability of the jurisdictions to obtain the funds. Since analysis results in the TIA are based on the periods of the highest travel demand, other periods of'the weekday (or week) are not as congested. Driving conditions outside those experienced during the peak congestion do not result in the delays that are indicated in the TIA results. We thank you for this opportunity to respond to ~:he staff.comments. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact, me. Regards, RAMEY KEMP & ASSOCIATES, INC. President .CC: Mr. Jeffrey B. Dierman Mr. Chuck Proctor Steven W. Blaine, Esq. A TTA CHMENT j _~' ,ti IAttachment L-5 . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineer/rig & Public Works MEMORANDUM To: Michael Barnes, Planning From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering Subject: Hollymead Town Center traffic Date received: 24 Feb 2003 Date of Comment: 3 Mar 2003 The Engineering Department has the following' comments in response to the letter from Ramey Kemp & Associates of Richmond. This letter was a series of Claims regarding ten topics of their choice, which were made in response to the County staff report and Planning Commission work session in February~ Trip Generation: The methods for trip generation were agreed upon in numerous meetings. As evidenced by this letter, the accuracy of the various methods, and the range of their acceptance, is hotly debated. VDOT and County staff provided the applicant the opportunity. to justify alternative methods. The applicant declined to provide such justification, so VDOT policies were used. Regardless of which method is used, the results on Rt. 29 signal performance and travel times are dramatic. H-IV. Rates of Internal, Pass-by Traffic, and Diverted Link trips: These topics were discussed at length in numerous meetings prior to the study. The applicant agreed at that time, these factors were not well documented, and would not have significant affects given the percentages allowed by VDOT policy. They declined to provide further study to justify larger percentages than VDOT policy. The nature of this big box development, and its location apart from other county shopping areas, and its lack of integrated mixed uses, was such that VDOT and County staff did not feel larger percentages were justified without further study. Vo Traffic Accident Data: No deception is intended. Accident data simply helps to characterize the corridor, and the decisions regarding traffic as involving more than signal delay times. It is not known whether the development will have any direct affect on safety. VI. Impacts on Rural Road Segments: It is unclear what is being stated. The traffic study says there are impacts to rural road segments, which the staff report referenced. Now, it seems the letter, by the same author, is refuting the report. The County and VDOT have not "imposed higher performance levels" as stated by the applicant. Please see item IX.A. The claim that "these intersections would warrant attention for furore improvements, whether this site is developed or not" has not been substantiated or supported by the study. VDOT's assessment, and the traffic study by the applicant, suggest the opposite. The County and VDOT have tried to exercise the best judgemem possible in distributing traffic percentages along these rural routes, based on analysis of census information, and on local knowledge. It is not accurate for the applicant to state that "the recommendations do not reflect any judgement on the relative safety or saitability of these roads". VlI..Parallel Road System: It is agreed that a parallel road system may help the Rt. 29 congestion. However, to date, the applicant's plans have not provided anything that would function as part of such a parallel road system. IX. VDOT Technical Comments: A. Synchro Model: Regardless of what initial work VDOT may have provided the applicant, it is the applicant's responsibility to ensure thatthe results are accurate. An error flee model would seem to be a prerequisite. The continued discussion of errors in the technical modeling suggests that the model is unfinished, or in need of repair for a more accurate result. An error free model would increase the level of confidence in the results. B. Additional Lanes on Rt. 29: As stated above, this would be better given no errors in the model. Additionally, it is worrisome that the applicant still refers to achieving LOS C on all movements of existing intersections, as if this were an unreasonable objective. VDOT and the County have not asked that levels of service improve, only that existing levels be maintained. To clarify the performance criteria, the objective is to not increase delay.beyond a set threshold. That threshold is 35 seconds per vehicle, corresponding to LOS C. If the movement in question is already beyond that threshold, the objective is to not increase the delay beyond existing levels. This criteria was stated at the Planning Commission work session as follows: New traffic signals must function at LOS C or better in all lane groups. Existing signals which function at LOS C or better must meet the same criteria as new signals. Existing signals which function below LOS C with projected background traffic must not increase delay times by more than 2 seconds in any lane group. (The 2 second number is simply a calculation tolerance, so if the result is slightly over or under, it is accepted.) X. Additional County-Requested Sensitivity Analysis of Discrete Roadway Segments: As this letter makes issue of a county request, please understand the County does not wish to request further analysis. It is simply required, that if the applicant makes claims, they are backed up. The claim in the report of November 2002 was "With or without the proposed Hollymead development, US 29 is projected to require two additional through lanes, in each direction, north of the South Fork Rivanna River crossing." (p.53) The applicant's letter now states, "...traffic increases can be mitigated with mm lane improvements at the intersections in 2005". It further states, "In 2008, in order to mitigate projected growth in the background traffic, a third northbound through lane would be needed...". Clearly, the results have gone fi.om needing 4 new lanes, to needing 1. VDOT's former plan for improving this corridor called for one additional lane in each direction, and a parallel service road system, designed for traffic growth until 2025. Copy: file 2301 FFE = 5,~-870~ .4 C¢'E,b',~' ROAD / /z / I z / / I \ ! ! ~ / '~ETAIL · ' 1-/STOR? 18,000 . I .I I ,/ , ,,/ iI i' // I I II I1 // I \ \ Hollymead Town Center Attachment O- Regional Service Area B We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following properties located in Albemarle County, Virginia: Tax Map 32, Parcel 42C Tax Map 32, Parcels 42B and 42D Tax Map 32, Parcel 42E Tax Map 32, Parcels 43 and 43A Tax Map 32, Parcel 44 Tax Map 32, Parcel 41D The properties identified above are, or may be affected, by the current application made by DRG Development, LLC seeking to amend the zoning map to a Planned Development-Mixed Co mmercialDistrict (the "Application"). 1. We each consent to and support the Application and the Proffers contained herein-. We each agree that for the purposes of the Application, the proposed development may be considered as if it were under unified control, and we will provide any additional evidence of unified control of the district or districts, if more than one, as may be required. 2. We each agree to proceed w/th the proposed development according to these Proffers, as well as to regulations existing when the map amendment creating the Planned Development District is approved, with such modifications as are set by the Board of Supervisors and agreed to by the applicant at the time of amendment. 3. We each agree to provide bonds, dedications, guarantees, agreements,, contracts and deed restrictions acceptable to the Board of Supervisors for such development according to approved Proffers, and for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas, facilities and functions as are not to be provided, operated or maintained at general public expense; and such dedications, contributions or guarantees as are required for provisions of needed public facilities or services. 4. We each agree to bind our successors in title 'to any commitments made under Paragraphs l, 2 or 3 above. River Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a COnnecticut limited partnership By: Wendell Wood, General Partner M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of NYC Land Trust 2 lAttachment o-5 ZMA-01-019 PROFFERS Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B March 11, 2003 TAX MAP PARCELS 32-43, 43A, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 44 and 41D [24.7] Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owner, or its duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning and it is agreed that: 1) the rezordng itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request: Overall development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan ~nfitled; ., prepared by Rivanna Engineering, revised January , 2003, last revised March ,2003 ("Application Plan"). 2. The owner shall have caused completion of the following road improvements by December 31, 2005: A. Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan across from the Hollymead Cemetery at Route 29 up to the western boundary of Area B. B. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A. C. Full signalization at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A. D. Right turn lane, southbound at Route 29 and Access Road A. o Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described above shall be satisfied if the owner has submitted plans for all such road improvements for review by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"), and although such improvements are not fully completed by December 31, 2005, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such.improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Submitted as of the 1 lth day of March, 2003, by: DRG Development, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company By: Jeffrey B. Dierman, Manager COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Planner Steven A. Al!shouse, Fiscal Impact Planner March 3, 2003 Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis of ZMA 01-19 (ltollymead Town Center - Area B) Per the information that you have supplied me, I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in question. The first scenario involved the maximum development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario involved the proposed zoning for this piece of land. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, for the sake of analysis, I assumed that 5 single family detached residences (SFD's) and 246,000 square feet of retail space would be built in 2003. CRIM estimates that, m°ter build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under the existing zoning would result in the following annual net fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact - Existing. Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues $164, 000 1,049,000 Total Revenues $1,213,000 School Expenditures ($249,000) County Govt. Expenditures (98,000) Total Expenditures ($347,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($866,000) ZMA 01-19 March 3, 2003 Page Two Note that the figures cited above differ slightly from those in the CRIM printout. This discrepancy results from rounding errors in the model. In terms of the annual impact that the development of 5 SFD's and 246,000 square feet of retail space would have on. the County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result: CIP Impact - Existing Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CI? Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) ($84,000) ($84,000) ($0) ($0) ($0) ($84,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $84,000 in capital costs is part of the $347,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of 5 SFD's and 246,000 square feet of retail space). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that wouM be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 298,000 square feet of retail space on the property~ For the sake of analysis, I assumed that this development would take place all in 2003. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact - Proposed ZMA Property Taxes Other Revenues $192,000 1,257,000 Total Revenues $1,449,000 School Expenditures ($260,000) County Govt. Expenditures (114,000) Total Expenditures ($374,000) Net Annual Fiscal Impact $19075,000 ZMA 01-19 March 3, 2003 Page Three As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed ZMA Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service ($0) (S85,000) Total Schools CIP Impact (S85,0o0) County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service (s0) (s0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact (so) Net Annual CIP Impact ($85~000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of S374,000 shown on the previous page, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 01-19, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $1,075~000 - $867,000 = $208,000° This number means that, annually, the County would be $2087000 better off approving ZMA 01-19 than denying the proposal. Note: Although my analysis suggests that the approv~ of ZMA 01-19 would result in a net annual fiscal surplus for the County, this fact 'alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-19 should be approved. When deciding whether or not to accept a proposed zoning map amendment, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the proposed ZMA' s fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, transportation impacts and the County's environmental well-being. SAA/saa 0 ~00 ~oo o 0 o Z ~e~-o ® ~" O~O0~ ._1 o ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ; , ~,~. ..' .-, Attachment :R;5 ,'-.. CHAPTER 18 ZONING SECTION 8 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY Sections: 8.3 ~'. ,.8~4~. : "8.5.I~' 8.5.2 8~5.3 '8.5.4' 8:5.5 8:5.6.1 8.5.6.2 ,8...5.6.3 g,5.6.5 8.1 INTENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED WIq[ERE PERMITTED PROCEDURES FOR PD APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS~ MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCES ~.,, ~:. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOlVEVIENDATIONS TO THE, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT..S ...... CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS O INTENT RELATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO GENERAL ZONING, SUBDMSION OR OTH-ER REGULATIONS 18-8-1 Planned development districts are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in, de_ s. ign,: ~.;i~ v-necessary to implement the varied goals and objectives of the county as set forth .in..the.- . ~-:,~ ,.,~) . ~.. "3,~.~ !, comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, these specml re~a'~¢fi~ g,5,?, are/ntended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to the _ ~ same extent as regulations of conventional districts. In addition, planned development .;~, ~..,,~ - regulations are tended to promote: economical and e£ oient land th ou .5 development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious '"~ical 'Si.!'.'- t~' development; creative design; and a better enmronment than generally realized through · conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages o£plarmed ""<? ~'~ development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned dev~bp~,nt ~':: ,iL,approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character. ;~.5... . i';...5.6,~Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and ' 'g..'¢.~ .convenience of residents; to facilitate protection of the character of surround/ng g.~.;~heighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impact through a reasonably short tra~g'.~me ".; between origins and destinations of persons hying, worldng, or visifing:'~in such 3.', [?;::~.developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of emlS:loyment ':. '" shall be related either by phYsical prox/mity or by adequate street networks .s0".as t0 · "): ' promote these objectives. :','. co vrr coo Attachmerit ~:~'RELATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ZONING, SUBDMSION OR OTHER REGULATIONS ~,' .... ~. -. The following provisions shall apply generally to the establishment and regulatid~i ;':': ~ ' planned development districts. Where conflicts occur between the special PD herein and general zoning, subdivision or other regulationsor reqmrements,' these.spe.'q[~l' '': ~ ~egulations shall apply in PD districts unless the board of supervisors shall find; in the particular case: (a) that provisions herein do not serve public purposes to a equ/valent to such general zoning, subdivision or other regulations or requiremen~ or (b) that actions, designs or solutions proposed by the applicant, although not lite.'rall~.in accord with these special or general regulations, satisfy public purposes to at equivalent degree. It is specifically provided, however, that where floor area and]~i ".~.'[a.r . ratios have been established by these regulations, the board shall not act in a p~rticul:~r case to alter said ratios. ::..~.,. ..... Except as provided above, procedures and requ/rements set forth herein and s~p~. .~ ' = ~ adopted for particular PD districts shall apply in such PD districts. .-: · . :.. 8.3:'P.I~ANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED "~'"::' 7 ~.'-. "~ ..... r';For purposes of these regulations, a planned development is: ~...:.". ~.' Land under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole; ~ii~ b~ Either in a single development operation or a programmed series of cteve}ol~me~St operations; ,',~J.. m i·, c. In accordance with approved application plans; and d~ Programmed for provision, operation and maintenance of such areas, famli~.~g"~n~ ~mprovements as will be for common use by some or all of the occuparit~' }~-'"'ttle ?larmed development districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the map where tracts suitable in location and character for the uses and structures l~.O.~s.,~' are to be planned and developed as units according to the requirements and - ..s~et forth herein. PD districts shall be appropriately located with respect to the patt¢..m_ .,a~.d ';{ .... .timing of the development proposed in the comprehensive plan, and to public and ~.~ .wa. t,.e_.. ' ' . facilities existing or scheduled to be available when required by the development: ,.. ",~';:~. 8.5 PROCEDURES FOR PD APPLICATIONS ., :'-': ,'.'!' ~.'" .5;1 APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED Applications for PD districts shall be submitted as for other zoning map amen,.'.dm.e, nt..s:: Material submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the commissi,o.n.: .s~..:!l include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may reasonably be required ~..t.:.o., the determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient cop~es for necess..._~... referrals and records. More specifically, all of the following shall be reqmrea: ':: ~.~:.' ~,.,~ :~ a Location of tract or parcel by vicinity map at a scale of not less than one (I'): ~ equals two thousand (2~000) feet, and landmarks sufficient to properly idel~f~ = location of thc property; ~' - b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the locatmn ar~9~.~e of boundary evidence; . 18-8-2 COWVTr CODe Attachmen't R;.$' c. E~isting roads, easements, ~d utilities; waterco~ses ~d their names; ~, zoning, present use of adjoining ~acts, ~d location of resid~tial adjoining ~acts, iffy; "'"'~":~"~:' d. Location, ~e and size off,ess ~d e~ess to the site; ~ ~ e. E~sting topo~aphy acc~ately sho~ Mth a mximm of five (5) foot inte~als at a scale of not less ~ one hm~ed (100) feet to ~e ~ch. Other ~t~al ~or scale may be requked or p~i~ed by ~e ~rector of pl~ffg?:.V~e topo~ap~c consid~ations w~ant; -: f. Flood pla~ li~ts whch shall be established by c~ent soil s~ey, C~s EnDneers s~ey, an~or en~ee~g me,ods; g. Co~ection to exis~g and proposed Vff~a Dep~t of ~ghways cons~cfion and proposed compreh~sive plan thoroughfares when necess~; h. A m~mm of Wo (2) data references for elevations to be used on pl~ and'~r~}¢} and co,elated, wh~e practical, to U.S. Geological S~ey data; · TM ~- i. A repo~ idenfi¢ing all ~ope~ o~ers wit~ the proposed ~s~ct ehdence of rafted consol of its entire area. The repo~ shall state present prope~ o~ers to: 1. ~oceed ~th ~e proposed development accor~g to relations exisfin~'~g the map amendment crea~g the PD dis~ct is approved, wi~ such as ~e set by the board of supemsors and a~eed to by the apphc~t at the h~e 2, Pro.de bonds, dedications, ~ar~tees, a~eemenB, con. acts, and' res~ctio~ acc~table to the bo~d of supe~sors for completion ..of such development accor~g to approved plans, and for continmg operafio~.'a~a ~int~ce of such areas, facilities and ~cfiom as ~e not to be pro~ded, operated or main~ed at general public e~se; and such con~bufions or ~arantees ~ ~e req~ed for pro. sion of needed' public facilities or semces; ~d ,: ... 3. Bind their successors in title ~ any co~i~ents made ~d~ 1 or 2 above;' j. ~ application plan shoMng gmeral road ~i~¢nts and proposed hghts~)~ general ali~m~t of sidewal~, bicycle and pedes¢ian ways; general wat~:~ and sto~ ~a~age lay-out; g~eral p~g ~d load~g ~eas and ckc~afion" location of recreation facilities; ex~shng' ' wooded' ~eas~ ~d areas to rema~ w0qd~d;'..~ s~aW ofl~d uses includ~g dwell~g ~es ~d d~sifies ~d ~oss floor hP~g~-I~r~ co~ercial and indus~ uses, preli~naW lot lay-out and proposed Mth a maxim~ of five (5) foot contom ~te~als. (~ded 9-9-92) ~,:. 8.5.2 PL~NG CO~SSION PROCED~S ,d' '.~.,~.....~' ~ applications for PD ~s~cts, the commission shall proceed in general as f6r' ~'. rezoning applications but shall g~ve special consideration to the following s~ll ~low ch~ges in od~nal applications as in~cated below. -~ ,:>~, ApplicanB ~e required to meet with the pl~g staff ~d o~er qualified officia!~' to redew the application plan and oh~al prop6sal phor to subtotal. The p~ose preapplicafion conference shall be to assist ~ bhnging the application and '~t&hal. 18-8-3 submitted there with. as nearly as possible into conformity with these or other reg~ati(~/-i~ in the case, and/or to define specific variations from application of re~i~- aiSplying which would otherwise apply which seem justified in view of equivalent service:':~f"~i~ public purposes of such regulations. ' ' ~" In the course of such preapplication conferences, any recommendations for changers, sha. l.1 be recorded in writing, and shall become part of the record in the case. A~l.l~:.sueh recommendations shall be supported by stated reasons for the proposed Applicants shall indicate, in writing, their agreement to such recommendations, i~t.~,e,¢,' disagreement and their reasons therefor. Response by applicants shall also be inclu.'deO::'in the record ...... > ~.,~. 8.5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO ~ BOARD OF .... ~" ' SUPERVISORS :' At such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on reques.t~%f~h~e~ applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the'l~6a~d supervisors. The date of the commission's determination to proceed, or of the app!i.,cant:.s ~": '' request for preparation of recommendations, shall be deemed the formal da~e .of submission of the application. Specifically, recommendations of the ,.' .. a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in tSri:ns'o~': · ~- relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land;' relation to surrounding area; :x:[! ~:.~. ~,~.l:,~ b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services; q',~, c. Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agree~nents: contractS, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, of instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those prop6§~t} ' and · :::'"""d. Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the'particulg based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justi, fie'c{[':by. demonstration that the public purposes of PD or general regulations as applie3";'WO~t, ld' be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. ~: :"~ Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the PD am~e~ as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval, u 8°5.5 ACTION BY BOARD O1~ SUPERVISORS On applications for PD districts, the board of supervisors shall proceed in provided for other map amendments. The board of supervisors may application accordance with m and general reg ations, modifications of PD or general regulations as provided in section 8.5.4 as recom~'~d by the commission, or may deny the application. ' ' If the application is approved, the board of supervisors shall in its amending ,.a.c..ti0."¢, . approve the application plan/n whole or m part or may indicate reqmred changes, an~t such approval and requirements shall be binding in determinations concerning ..fma1 development plans. The development shall be in accord with site developmeh~'p~a~as meeting the requirements of th/s ordinance as specifically supplemented or modffie.~l.. the board of supervisors in the particular case. Modifications in the applicatiom~plam~/~ other application materials requ/red by board approval shall be submitted by the api)lica~, t to the director of planning prior to subm/ssion of the final site development~.p..1,_~,,~s: ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Attachment R,5 ·-V"': ': Revised application plans shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of board appf0val or such approval shall be deemed null and void. 8.5.6 FINAl, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDMSION PLATS 8.5.6.1 CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS "'-' Unless modification is permitted by board of supervisors' action pursuant to s,e~o..n,.s 8.5.4 and 8.5.5, all site development plans shall comply with section 32.0..p'.f,.,..,.~..'~ ordinance and all subdivision plats shall comply with Chapter 14 of the Albemarle. (Amended 9-9-92) . :.,.: , ... 8.5.6.2 APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS Approval of site development Plans and subdivision plats shall be based on: compliafiee with site development plan or subdivision regulations applying at the time the la/id Was designated as a PD district; or at the option of the applicant, compliance with'~uch regulations currently in effect. (Amended 9-9-92) 8.5.6.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS Variations in site development plans and subdivision plats from approved apphcation plans may be permitted by the director of planning and community development 'u..ppn:. finding that such variations are: generally in keeping with the spirit and conceptj= ,.o_ f.~ae approved application plans; in accordance with the comprehensive plan; :Land, .~in accordance with regulations currently in effect. Changes other than permitted~h:.e..r.e:',m. shall be made only by rezoning apphcation. (Amended 9-9-92) :~.','. ~,'~,. 8.5.6.4 BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS After PD designation, no building permit including special footings and foundation permits shall be issued in such district prior to approval of site development pl'~an~',or subdivision plats for the development of the area in which such permits would apply. In the case of a subdivision plat, the director of planning and community developme~'t' may authorize issuance of a grading permit for road construction upon approval of road...~l, ans by the director of engineering or the Virginia Department of Transportation as the 'cas.'.e maybe. (Amended 9-9-92) ' 8.5.6.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS In the case of any PD district established at the time of the adoption of this ordin~,- thereafter by action of the board of supervisors without an application, as to which .no application has been submitted in accordance with section 8.5.1 of this ordinance or the analogous provisions of any predecessor ordinance, no site development El.an' ,or. subdivision plat shall be approved unless and until such application, includi, l~g ,~11, transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps, studies and reports required.b~th/.'5 ordinance, shall have been submitted and approved in accordance with this section. :." In the case of any such PD district which has been heretofore dec-eloped in accordance -with an approved site development plan, such approved site development plan shall be deemed to be the application plan for all purposes hereunder and there shall be no requ/ren/ent for any further application. (Amended 7-16-86) 18-8-5 Attachment $-5 ~ J COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM To: Michael Barnes, Planning From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering Subject: Hollymead Town Center, conceptual grading plans Date received: 28 Feb 2003 Date of Comment: 4 Mar 2003 The Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The conceptual grading plan is incomplete. There are no proposed contours shown for significant parts of the application plan to the south and west. 2. The are significant errors on th~ grades in parking areas. Grades of up to 25% are sho;~m in parking areas on the north sideofthe plan. The allowable grade ts 5% in any direction. 3. Conceptual road profiles were hot provided. The transition in grades on Access Road A still appears too severe on the plan. 4. The concept does not appear to reflect "site planning that respects terrain" (Neighborhood Model principle 11.) The ridge is cut as much as 30', and cut and fills are frequently from t0' to 20' high. There does not apl~ear to be any attempt to make up grades in the parking area for "Anchor A", which has a slope of about 1.25%. It could be as much as 5%, and more on average if grades were made up in landscape features. , 5. A key component of the northern entrance is the large retaining wall and building wall above the stormwater basin, which has been missed in the profiles. This large grade jump will have a dramatic visual impact. The profile should be revised to show this feature. 6. Berms between Route 29 and buildings and parking areas were d/scussed in previous meetings. These are not provided for in the plans, and do not appear possible given the grading concepts so far. Because the site is above Route 29, this may be more pertinent to building sides than parking lots. The site's relationship to Route 29 is a significant element, and should be more clearly depicted by showing more of Rt. 29 on the profiles. 7. The stormwater basins near Route 29 are a significant portion of the grading plan, and their location and conceptual adequacy have yet to be evaluated. Please refer to earlier correspondence requesting conceptual areas and computations for these facilities. Grading is still shown more than 50' within the stream buffer on the south side. The grading plan should be revised to stay 100' from the stream} unless conceptual mitigation plans are provided. In summary, the conceptual grading appears to be substantially the same as provided on application plans reviewed in July 2002. Most of the above comments were made at that time, although in slightly different language, and many were made well before. As in previous correspondence, the applicant is encouraged to design conceptual plans safely within allowable limits, to ensure that final site plans will be achievable. 75' PHILIP A. SHUCET COMMISSIONER May 6, 2003 COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 JAMES L. BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Glenn Brooks Dept. of Engineering & Public Works 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Albemarle County Dear Mr. Brooks: I am writing in response to your letter dated April 22, 2003 concerning Hollymead Town Center rezonings. We do not support the new median cut and signal on Route 29 proposed for the development at the existing cemetery entrance. The improvements proposed with this entrance are not sufficient to mitigate the impacts to the transportation infrastructure. The attached letter from the District Traffic Engineer concurs with this position. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Jmr~es L. Bryan id,-ent E gi Res n neet ~.~X..__.~--/ TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21sT CENTURY TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM- CULPEPER DISTRICT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SECTION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Chuck Proctor - ~ E C~ .~ulnener, Virginia SteveBlack ~/'/ff~ '~ Di}~'ict Traffic Engineer ~ESIDEN . Hol]ymead Tom ~enter ovlLLE. VA Route 29-Albem~le Coun~ This is in response to your request of April 23, 2003 for my comments on the proposed re-zoning for the Hollymead Town Center on the west side of Route 29 between Airport Road and Hollymead in Albemarle County. I do not support the present submission. Listed below are my recommendations on this matter. -, · Route 29 is a key corridor providing interstate and intrastate mobility. We should strive to maintain the integrity of this principal arterial (National Highway System) and minimize interference to through traffic. Allowing ineffective planning in this case would compromise other nearby prior public/private investments made in road improvements and access management along Route 29. · Level of service "C" should be maintained on the existing road system for future peak hours. · The level of recommended improvements does not provide adequate level of service with the new development in place. The additional signalized intersection on Route 29 at the Holy Memorial Gardens site is strongly discouraged. Traffic signal spacing is not adequate for maintaining travel speed on Route 29, and the level of service is unacceptable. Traffic signal spacing for a high priority regional corridor like Route 29 should be about one mile. An access point across from the existing traffic signal at Hollymead would possibly be acceptable. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important proposal, and if I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. WSB pc: Mr. James Bryan Mr. Marshall Barron Mr. Matt Grimes Ms. Anne Hagan Mr. Paul Balderson, Jr