Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-16 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 16, 2003 June 21,2003 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to Order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, David Benish and Ella Carey. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · John Martin, Katie Hobbs and Edward Strange commented on the resignation of Larry Tropea as the Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. They asked the Board to intervene, work to resolve the issues and rehire Mr. Tropea. 5.1 Resolution to accept roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, into the State Secondary System of Highways. · ADOPTED Resolution. 5.2 Resolution to accept road(s) in Rio East Commercial Area into the State Secondary System of Highways. · ADOPTED Resolution. 5.3 Resolution to accept road(s) in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections 1 & 2, Subdivision, into the State Secondary System of Highways. · ADOPTED Resolution. 6. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center, Re.qional Service Area B (Sign #87). · APPROVED ZMA-2001-019, by a vote of 5:1, as proffered dated July 16, 2003. 7. SP-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A". · APPROVED SP-2001-019, by a vote of 5:1, subject to two conditions. 8- SP-2001-064. Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B". · APPROVED sp-2001-064, by a vote of 5:1, subject to two conditions. 9. ZMA-2001-020. Hollymead Town Center (Sign #56). · DEFERRED ZMA-2001-020, by a vote of 6:0, to August 6, 2003. 10. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center. · DEFERRED ZMA-2001-020, by a vote of 6:0, to August 6, 2003. 11. ZMA-2001-019. Hollymead Town Center (Signs #58&59). · DEFERRED ZMA-2001-020, by a vote of 6:0, to August 6; 2003. 12. Juvenile Court Fa(;ade Design Options. VOTED IN SUPPORT of the more modern approach for the design of the Juvenile Court facade. 13. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · At the request of the applicant, the Board expedited the public hearing on SP-2003-041, St. John Baptist Church Amendment, for August 6, 2003. · Regarding comments made during matters from the public Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell. (Attachment 1) Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell. (Attachment 2) Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell. (Attachment 3) Clerk: Set out proffers below. (Attachment 4) Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 4) Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. (Attachment 4) Clerk: Schedule for August 6, 2003 agenda. Clerk: Schedule for August 6, 2003 agenda. Clerk: Schedule for August 6, 2003 agenda. Clerk: Notify City Council of the Board's action. Clerk: Advertise and schedule public hearing for August 6, 2003. concerning the resignation of the Executive Director of RWSA, and after some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to not get involved in such decisions of the Authority. 14. Adjoum. · At 9:37 p.m., the meeting was adioumed. /ewc Attachment 1 - Resolution - Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7 Attachment 2 - Resolution - Rio East Commercial Area Attachment 3 - Resolution - Grayrock Subdivision, Sections 1 & 2 Attachment 4 - Planning Conditions of Approval Attachment 1 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Cimuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July t6, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Starcrest Road (State Route 1194) from existing ed of State Maintenance Route 1194 to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/02/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1668, pages 536-538, with a 50-foot right-of- way width, for a length of 0.15 mile. Attachment 2 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Rio East Commercial Area, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Rio East Commercial Area, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require- ments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation, The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Stamrest Road (State Route 1194) from existing ed of State Maintenance Route 1194 to the cut-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/02/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1668, pages 536-538, with a 50-foot right-of- way width, for a length of 0.15 mile. Total Mileage- 0.15 mile. 4 Attachment 3 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections I and 2, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections 1 and 2, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Grayrock Court (State Route 1382) from the intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right- of-way width, for a length of 0.04 mile. 2) Grayrock Drive {State Route 1381) from the intersection of Jarmans Lake Road (Route 1380) to the west intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/03/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.21 mile. 3) Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the end of state maintenance to the intersection of Grayrock Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/03/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 mile. 4) Grayrock Drive (State Route t381) from the intersection of Grayrock Ddve (Route 1381) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 05/03/2001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. 5) Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Jarmans Lake Road (Route 1380) to the intersection of Grayrock Court (Route 1382), as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. 6) 7) 8) 9) Grayrock Drive (State Route 1381) from the intersection of Grayrock Court (Route 1382) to the intersection of Laura Lane (Route 1383), as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.04 mile. Grayrock Drive (State Route 138t) from the intersection of Laura Lane (Route 1383) to the end of state maintenance (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 mile. Jarmans Lake Road (State Route 1380) from the intersection of Jarmans Gap Road (Route 691) to the intersection of Grayrcck Drive (Route 1381), as shown on plat recorded 05/0312001 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 2020, pages 131-137, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. Laura Lane (State Route 1383) from the intersection of Grayrock Ddve (Route 1381) to the end of state maintenance (Route 1383), as shown on plat recorded 05/22/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1924, pages 71-75, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.03 mile. Total Mileage - 0.62 mile. Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-200t-0'I9. Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Si.qn #87). Public hearing on a request to rezone 24.7 acs from RA & HC to PD-MC to allow for shopping center. Portions of TM 32, Ps 41D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A & 44. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. (The Comp Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community & recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service uses.) Rio Dist APPROVED as proffered: ZMA-01-019 PROFFERS Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B July 16, 2003 TAX MAP PARCELS 32-41D (part), 42B (part), 42C (part), 42D, 42E, 43, 43A(part) and 44 (part) 24.7 Acres Pursuant to Section .33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners, or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below which shall only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as Regional Service Area B on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some of the above referenced tax map parcels (the "Property"). 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 Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B, (Sheets A-l, A-2, and A-6 of 7 only), prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, revised February 15, 2002, last revised April 29, 2003 ("Application Plan"). The owners have presented, as part of their rezoning applications, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning actions they are seeking. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, other than the Application Plan as defined above, shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. The owners reserve the right to reconfigure the outpamel improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive-through window features that are the subject of SP 01-63 and SP 01-64 and as shown on the Application P~an in order to: i) comply with conditions imposed by such Special Use Permits, and ii) assure compliance with ARB requirements. The owners of Area B, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner") shall cause completion of the following road improvements: Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan, across from the Hollymead Memodal Gardens Cemetery at US Route 29 up to the western boundary of Area B. This shall include the two eastbound lanes located on Area A pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the County as part of the Area B site plan. Access Road A also shall include dual left and dual dght turn lanes at the intersection with Route 29. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, from northbound Route 29 into Access Road A. The dual left turn lanes and signalization at Route 29 and Access Road A shall include median cut and cross-over construction at the Hollymead Memodal Gardens Cemetery location, (the "Cross-over") as scheduled in coordination with VDOT. The Owner also proffers to construct a single southbound left turn lane on Route 29 at the intersection (to allow left turn movement into the cemetery). All turn movements shall be signalized at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, as approved by VDOT. The Owner shall dedicate land, if necessary, and construct a continuous dght tum lane on Route 29 southbound from the northern boundary of the Property to the entrance road, (Access Road A). The Owner proffers to construct a third southbound through lane on Route 29 from the northern boundary of the Property to the entrance road, (Access Road A) and beyond the entrance road, (Access Road A) for a distance of 1000 feet The southbound through lanes of Route 29 shall be re-constructed to the profile grade of the northbound lanes to meet adequate sight distance requirements at the Cross-over, based upon a 50 mile per hour design speed and a maximum 4 percent cross-slope requirement. A third northbound through lane shall be constructed on Route 29, 1000 feet in length on each side of the Cross-over. The road improvements listed in 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E above shall be constructed, in accordance with road plans submit/ed by the Owner and approved by VDOT. All of the foregoing improvements shall be i) constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Applicant and VDOT, and ii) accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance as a condition for issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Area B improvements. The width, length, (except as specified in 2C and 2E above) location, (inside median or outside existing pavement), type of section (e.g., urban vs. rural), and geometrics of all lane improvements shall be as required by VDOT design standards and detailed plans submitted by the Owner and approved by VDOT. The Owner shall cause to be constructed and dedicated the segment of Access Road A from the westem boundary of Area B to its intersection with State Route 606, also known as Dickerson Road and as shown on the at/ached map entitled Future Roads, dated July 15, 2003 ("Exhibit A"). Construction of this section of Access Road A shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use and dedication of a minimum 60-foot-wide right-of-way and all necessary easements have been dedicated to the County within three (3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01- 019. This section of Access Road A shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in this paragraph 3 shall be satisfied if plans for all such road improvements have been submitted for review by VDOT and, although such improvements are not accepted by VDOT for public use within three (3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01-019, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Further, the road profferS described in this paragraph 3 shall be satisfied if and when any portion of Area A is rezoned, and the owner of Area A makes a proffer binding Area A, or any portion thereof to all the obligations contained in this proffer 3. The Owner also shall cause to be constructed and dedicated Ridge Road from its intersection with Access Road A to the northern boundary of Area A (with Area C), as shown in blue on Exhibit A. Construction of the section of Ridge Road as shown on Exhibit A shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use within one (1) year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Area B. This section of Ridge Road shall be constructed initially to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction) and a bicycle lane only (without parallel parking and sidewalks). The area to be dedicated, however, shall be not less than sixty (60) feet in width to allow future widening. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use within Area B until the segment of Ridge Road required to be constructed by this proffer is either cOnstructed to VDO-r's standards, or a sufficient bond or other form of surety is provided to the County in an amount sufficient to assure its construction and VDOT's acceptance. If the owners of Area A refuse after request from the County to dedicate land sufficient for Ridge Road as contemplated herein, then the Owner shall pay the costs to acquire such land, which costs shall include VDOT's normal costs of acquiring by condemnation, including land acquisition, engineering, surveying, reasonable attorneys fees, and the cost of construction of this section of Ridge Road, and other related expenses. Owner proffers to contribute $50,000.00 to the County or VDOT, on behalf of Area B and Area A for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $50,000.00 contribution shall be made within thirty (30) days after requested by the County following site plan approval for Area B and, if not expended for such purpose after three (3) years from the date the funds were contributed such funds shall be refunded to the Owner. Upon the request of the County, Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA~) established pursuant to Section I5.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending, or maintaining (except to the extent VDOT maintains any public improvements) Route 29, and roads and other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may not be limited to, improvements to Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road Or the extension of Ridge Road as depicted on Exhibit A, to the south and across the Rivanna River to connect to Berkmar Drive. This proffer shall only apply if all of the owners of the lands subject to ZMA-01-018, ZMA-01-19, ZMA-01-020, and ZMA-02-002, as such applications exist on July 16, 2003, excluding residential property, have joined or been caused to join the same or a similar CDA for the purposes described herein. This proffer shall apply only if, at the time of the formation of the CDA, the rate of any special tax imposed shall be uniform and shall not exceed twenty-five cents ($.25) per $100 of the assessed value of any taxable real estate within the CDA, unless all the owners within the CDA subsequently consent to any proposed rate or level of assessment otherwise. There shall be two (2) pedestrian walkways/grade arms located within parking areas depicted on the Application Plan, located to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development. These pedestrian walkways/grade arms within the parking areas shall be tree- lined; by planting street trees at least every fifty feet (50') on center. Submitted as of the 16th day of July, 2003, by: ' DRG development, LLC By; (Signed) Jeffrey B. Dierman, Manager River Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited partnership By: (Signed) Wendell Wood, General Partner By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of NYC Land Trust By: (Signed) Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of NYC Land Trust By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of GLF Land Trust By: (Signed) Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of GLF Land Trust By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of MMS Land Trust By: (Signed) Robert M Callaghan, Trustee of MMS Land Trust By: (Signed) M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of the One Ninth Land Trust By: (Signed) M. Clifton McOlure, Trustee of the Sixty-four 616 Land Trust By: (Signed) Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of the Sixty-four 616 Land Trust Tower of Deliverance Church By: (Signed) Charles M. Hut Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2001-063. Hollymead Town Center~ "Drive-In A". Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 420, 42D, 42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. Znd RA & HC. Rio Dist. The Architectural Review Board may alter the locations and/or orientation of drive-throughs to protect the Entrance Corridor; and 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. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2001-064. Hollymead Town Center~ "Drive4n B". Public hearing on a request to allow drive-in window in accord w/Sec 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 32, Ps 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43 & 43A, is 24.7 acs. Loc on Rt 29 N approx 1/4 mile S of the Timberwood Boulevard/Rt 29 intersec. Znd RA & HC. Rio Dist. The Architectural Review Board may alter the locations and/or orientation of drive-throughs to protect the Entrance Corddor;.and 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. 10 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Lake Reynovia Subdivision, Phase 7, as described on the .attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mr. Rooker Seconded by: Ms. ThomaS Yeas: Nays: None Absent: None Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker and Ms. Thomas A Copy Teste: ~-Carey,-C'T~rk, C~) Board of County Sup~ In the County of Albemarle By resolution of the governing body adopted July 16, 2003 The following Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. fl Report of Changes in the Secondary. System of State~ays Form SR-SA Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 Project/Subdivision Lake Reynovia, Phase 7 Type of Change: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested, the dght of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is gua~-anteed: Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229 Route Number and/or Street Name I Starcrest Road, State Route Number 1194 Description: From: From Existing End Of State Maintenance Route 1194 To~ Cul-de-sac A distance of: 0.15 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 4/2/1996, Deed Book 1668, Pg 536-538, with a width of 50' Page 1 of 1 The read(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Starcrest Road (State Route 1'194) from existing end of State Maintenance (Route 1194) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 04/02/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1668, pages 536-538, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.15 mile. Total Mileage - 0.15 mile. The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Rio East Commercial Area, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Rio East Commercial Area, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to {}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mr. Rocker Seconded by: Ms. Thomas Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Mr. Rocker and Ms. Thomas Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: In the County of Albemarle By,resolution of the governing body adopted July 16, 2003 The following Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highwa, vs. ,4 Copy Testee Signed (County Official): ~~ Rep°rt °f Changes in the Sec°ndary System °f State~h~ays~ Form SR-5A Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 Project/Subdivision Rio East Commercial Area Type of Change: Addition The following additions to the SecondarY System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or.provisions cited, are hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street Pursuant to.Code of Virginia Statute: §33.1-229 Route Number and/or Street Name · Rio East Court, State Route Number 1562 Description: From.' Rio Road, Route 631 To: Cul-de-sac A distance off 0.12 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 9/26/2002, Deed Book 278, Pg. 443,, with a width of 50' Page 1 of 1 The road(s) described on Additions Form SR,5(A) are: 1) Rio East Court (State Route 1562) from Rio Road (Route 631) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 09/26/2002 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 278, page 443, with a 50-foot right-of, way width, for a length of 0.12 mile. Total Mileage - 0.12 mile. The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 16th day of July 2003, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Grayrock Subdivision, sections 1 and 2, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Grayrock Subdivision, Sections 1 and 2, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated July 16, 2003, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mr. Rooker Seconded by: Ms. Thomas Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins Mr. RoOker and Ms. Thomas Nays: None Absent: None A Copy Teste: In the County of Albemarle By resolution of the governing body adopted July 16, 2003 The following Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorP~ ~:a~e~as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. ..... Report of Changes in the SeC~ry sYst;m o~State ~t~/gh~ays Form SR-5A Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 Project/Subdivision Grayrock Section 1 & 2 Type of Change: Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: §33/I-229 Route Number and/or Street Name · Grayrock Court, State Route Number 1382 Oesc#ption: From: Intersection Grayrock Drive Rt. 1381 To: Cul De Sac A distance o~. 0.04 miles. Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/22/2000, Deed Book 1924 Pg.71-75, with a width of 50' Page 1 of 2 Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Highways Form SR.5A Secondary Roads Division 5/I/99 · Grayrock Drive, State Route Number 1381 Description: From: Intersection Jarmans Lake Road Rt. 1380 To: West Intersection Grayrock Drive Rt. 1381 A distance of: 0.21 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/3/2001, Deed Book 2020 Pg. 131-137, with a width of 50' Description: From:' End Of Maintance To: Intersection Grayrock Drive Rt. 1381 A distance of:. 0.04 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/3/2001, Deed Book 2020 Pg. 131-137, with a width of 50' · Description: From: Intersection Graymck Drive Rt.1381 To: Cul De Sac A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/3/2001, Deed Book 2020 Pg. 131-13.7, with a width of 50' ~ --D~c~pti~n: From: Intersection Jarmans Lake Road To: Intersection Grayrock Court A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/22/2000. Deed Book 1924 Pg.71-75, with a width of 50' Description: From: Intersection Graymck Court Rt. 1382 To: Intersection Laura~Lane Rt.1383 A distance of: 0.04 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/22/2000, Deed Book 1924 Pg.71-75, with a width of 50' Description: From: Intersection Laura Lane Rt.1383 To: End Maintance Rt. 1381 A distance of: 0.11 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/22/2000, Deed Book 1924 Pg. 71-75, with a width of 501 Jarmans Lake Road, State Route Number 1380 --D~-sc~pti~n: ~ro~?t: ~n~rs~ct~nTa~na~ (~ap Road Rt.691 To: Intersection Grayrock Drive Rt. 1381 A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/3/2001, Deed Book 2020 Pg.131-137, with a width of 50' · Laura Lane, State Route Number 1383 Description: From., Intersection Grayrock Drive Rt. 1381 To: End Maintance Rt.1383 A distance of: 0.03 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 5/22/2000, Deed Book 1924 Pg.71-75, with a width of 50' County of Albemarle, Date of Resolution: July 16, 2003 Page 2 of 2 ZMA-01-019 PROFFERS Hollymead Town Center Re~onal Service Area B July 16, 2003 TAX MAP PARCELS 32-41D (part), 42B (part), 42C (part), 42D, 42E, 43, 43A(part) and 44 (part) 24.7 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners, or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below which shall only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as Re~onal Service Area B on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some of the above referenced tax map parcels (the "Property"). 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 Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center RegiOnal Service Area B, (Sheets A-I, A- 2, and A-6 of 7 only), prepared by Pdvanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, revised February 15, 2002, last revised April 29, 2003 ("Application Plan"). The owners have presented, as p. art of their rezoning applications, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning actions they are seeking. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, other than the Application Plan as defined above, shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. The owners reserve the fight to reconfigure the outparcel improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive- through window features that are the subject of SP 01-63 and SP 01-64 and as shown on the Application Plan in order to: i) comply with conditions imposed by such Special Use Permits, and ii) assure compliance with ARB requirements. 2. The owners of Area B, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner") shall cause completi on of the following road improvements: A. Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan, across from the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery at US Route 29 up to the western boundary of Area B. This shall include the two eastbound lanes located on Area A pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the County as part of the Area B site plan. Access Road A also shall include dual left and dual right turn lanes at the intersection with Route 29. ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B B. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, from northbound Route 29 into Access Road A. The dual left turn lanes and s~g-nalization at Route 29 and Access Road A shall include median cut and cross- over construction at the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery location, (the "Cross-over") as scheduled in coordination with VDOT. The Owner also proffers to construct a single southbound left turn lane on Route 29 at the intersection (to allow left turn movement into the cemetery). All turn movements shall be sig-nalized at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, as approved by VDOT. C. The Owner shall dedicate land, if necessary, and construct a continuous right turn lane on Route 29 southbound from the northern boundary of the Property to the entrance road, (Access Road A). The Owner proffers to construct a third southbound through lane on Route 29 from the northern boundary of the Property to the entrance road, (Access Road A) and beyond the entrance road, (Access Road A) for a distance of 1000 feet. D. The southbound through lanes of Route 29 shall be re-constrUcted to the profile grade of the northbOund lanes to meet adequate sight distance requirements at the Cross-over, based upon a 50 mile per hour design speed and a maximum 4 percent cross-slope requirement. E. A thirdnorthbound through lane shall be constructed on Route 29, 1000 feet in length on each side of the Cross-over. The road improvements listed in 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E above shall be constructed, in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved by VDOT. All of the foregoing improvements shall be i) constructed to VDOT design standards pursuant to detailed plans agreed to between the Applicant and VDOT, and/i) accepted by VDOT for public use or bonded for VDOT's acceptance as a condition for issuance of any certificate of occupancy for Area B improvements. The width, length, (except as specified in 2C and 2E above) location, (inside median or outside existing pavement), type of section (e.g., urban vs. rural), and geometrics of all lane improvements shall be as required by VDOT design standards and detailed plans submitted by the Owner and approved by VDOT. 3. The Owner shall cause to be constructed and dedicated the segment of Access Road A from the western boundary of Area B to its intersection with State Route 606, also known as Dickerson Road and as shown on the attached map entitled Future Roads, dated July 15, 2003 ("Exhibit A"). Construction of this section of Access Road A shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use and dedication of a minimum 60-foot- wide right-of-way and all necessary easements have been dedicated to the County within three (3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01-019. This section of Access Road A shall be constructed to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction). ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in this paragraph 3 shall be satisfied if plans for all such road improvements have been submitted for review by VDOT and, although such improvements are not accepted by VDOT for public use within three (3) years from the date of approval of ZMA-01-019, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Further, the road proffers described in this paragraph 3 shall be satisfied if and when any portion of Area A is rezoned, and the owner of Area A makes a proffer binding Area A, or any portion thereof to all the obligations contained in this proffer 3. 4. The Owner also shall cause to be constructed and dedicated Ridge Road from its intersection with Access Road A to the northern boundary of Area A (with Area C), as shown in blue on Exhibit A. Construction of the section of Ridge Road as shown on Exhibit A shall be completed for acceptance by VDOT for public use within one (1) year after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Area B. This section of Ridge Road shall be constructed initially to accommodate two trivet lanes (one in each direction) and a bicycle lane only (without parallel parking and sidewalks). The area to be dedicated, however, shall be not less than sixty (60) feet in width to allow future widening. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use within Area B until the segment of Ridge Road required to be constructed by this proffer is either constructed to VDOT's standards, or a sufficient bond or other form of surety is provided tothe County in an amount sufficient to assure its construction and VDOT's acceptance. If the owners of Area A refuse after request from the County to dedicate land sufficient for Ridge Road as contemplated herein, then the Owner shall pay the costs to acquire such land, which costs shall include VDOT's normal costs of acquiring by condemnation, including land acquisition, en~neering, surveying, reasonable attorneys fees, and the cost of construction of this section of Ridge Road, and other related expenses. 5. Owner proffers to contribute $50,000.00 to the County or VDOT, on behalf of Area B and Area A for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $50,000.00 contribution shall be made within thirty (30) days after requested by the County following site plan approval for Area B and, if not expended for such purpose after three (3) years from the date the funds were contributed such funds shall be refunded to the Owner. 6. Upon the request of the County, Owner shall petition for and consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending, or maintaining (except to the extent VDOT maintains any public improvements) Route 29," and roads and other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may not be limited to, improvements to Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road or the extension of Ridge Road as depicted on Exhibit A, to the south and across the Rivanna River to connect to Berkmar Drive. This proffer shall only apply if all of the owners of the lands subject to ZMA-01-018, ZMA-01-19, ZMA-01-020, and ZMA-02-002, as such applications exist on July 16, 2003, excluding residential ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B property, have joined or been caused to join the same or a similar CDA for the purposes described herein. This proffer shall apply only if, at the time of the formation of the CDA, the rate of any spec/al tax imposed shall be uniform and shall not exceed twenty- five cents ($.25) per $100 of the assessed value of any taxable real estate within the CDA, unless all the owners within the CDA subsequently consent to any proposed rate or level of assessment otherwise. 7. There shall be two (2) pedestrian walkways/~ade arms located within parking areas depicted on the Application Plan, located to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development. These pedestrian Walkways/~ade arms within the parking areas shall be tree-lined, by planting street trees at least every fifty feet (50') on center. Submitted as of the 16th day of July, 2003, by: DRG DeveloPment, LLC nager River Heights Associates Limited Partnership, a Connecticut limited partnership Wendell W~)od, General Partner ZMA-01~019 I-Iollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B M. Clifton/IV/lcClure, Trustee of NYC Land Trust i/ ' Robert M. Callaghan, TrustJe' of~Yc Land Trust M. Clifton ~cClure, Trustee ~ ~LF Land Trust v RobCndCf. Callaghan, Tmstee//of GLF Land Trust M. Clifton ]~Clure, Trustee of 4'(/IMS Land Trust (J /Rbt~rt M. Calla~,han, Tmst~ of MMS Land Trust M. Clifton M~2lure, Trustee of th/e One Ninth Land T~hst · Clifton lV~c~Clure, Trustee of the' Sixty- four 616 LankttTmst "-(_Robe'~M. Callaghan, Trustee of the Sixty- four 616 Land Trust ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B Tower of Deliverance Church HAND DELIVERED Larry Davis, County Attorney Albemarle County Office Building Re: Post Office Land Trust Dear Mr. Davis: This letter is to confirm that Shirley L. Fisher, co-trustee of the Post Office Land Trust, is currently on vacation out of the State of Virginia. Pursuant to Article II, D. of the Post Office Land Trust Agreement, I am authorized to act alone as sole Trustee. Very truly yours, Charles Wm. Hurt N mead Dr Future Roads Required by VDOT ~-j.,.j,,~///~r.- , ·~oomm~d~a~ WO~ ~j/~ -- Proposed by Applicants ~ Required By VDOT, Proposed by Applicants 1 inch equals 700 feet COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hollymead Town Center (Area B) ZMA 01-19, SP 02-63, & SP 02-64 Hoilymead Town Center (Area C) ZMA 01,20, SP 03-30 Hollymead Town Center (Area D) ZIVIA 02~02 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: (Area B) -- Rezoning request to rezone 24.7 acres from PA, Rural Areas with proffersand 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 41 D, 42B, 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A, and 44, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North ~pproximately 1/4 mile south of the Timberwood Boulevard/Route 29 intersection. The COmprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hoilymead Community and recommends Mi~d Use/Regional Service uses. (Area C) - Request to rezone 37.13 acres from [Commercial] and L! [Light Industrial] foPD-MC [Planned Development- Mixed C(~mmercial] to'allow for a mix,d-use development. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 41D, 43A~ 44, 45, and 46 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North at the Timberwood Boulevard/Route 29 intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hoilymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community and recommends Mixed Use/Regional Service/Community Service uses. (Area D) - Request to rezone 24.1 acres from PA [Rural Areas] to NMD [Neighborhood Model District] to allow for a mix~ -use development. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 46 and 41D, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North at the Timbenvood Boulevard/ Route 29 intersection. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community and recommends Mixed Use/CommUnity Service and Urban Density uses. STAFF CONTACT(S): TUCKER, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, Barnes. AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: 'Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The purpose:of this Executive Summary is to condense into one document the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Hollymead Town Center and provide the current status of the applicants' proffers. The Planning Commission has held public hearings on all four Hollymead Town Center Rezoning requests (Attachment A). The staff made the following recommendations and the Commission took the following actions at those public hearings: > Area A (ZMA 01-18, The United Land Company) - Staff recommended that the Commission deny the proposal baSed on its inadequate concept design, lack of pertinent information, and an inability to mitigate traffic impacts. The Commission generally agreed with staff's recommendation and accepted the applicant's request for indefinite deferral so that he could continue to refine his proposal to meet the issues raised in the staff report. ~> Area B (ZMA 01=19, Dierman Realty) - Staff recommended that the Commission deny the proposal based on its inadequate concept design and inability to mitigate traff~c impacts. The Commission split (3:3) on a vote to recommend approval of the project to the Board. > Area C (ZMA 01 =20, The Virginia Land Co.) - Staff recommended that the Commission approve the proposal based upon its successful ability to meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model and. the goals of the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA). However, staff recommended that the Commission's approva~ should be based upon on the applicant's ability to mitigate traffic impacts and offset impacts related to the fire and rescue services through proffers. While the Commission liked the applicant's proposed site design, it voted 3:2 to recommend denial because the traffic impact and fire and rescue issues remained unresolved. > Area D (ZMA 02-02, The Kessler Group) - As with Area C, staff recommended approval based on the proposal's ability to meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model and the goals of the Ho~iymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA); but, the recommendation was based upon the applicant's ability to mitigate traffic impacts and offset impacts related to the fire and rescue services through proffers. The Commission voted 3:2 to recommend approval on the condition that the traffic impacts and fire and rescue issues are adequately resolved. The main difference between the Planning Commission's recommendations for denial of the Area C rezoning and approval of the Area D rezoning is the scale of the impacts. Area D's 150 to. 300 dwelling units generate significantly less traffic impacts than Area C's potential for 120 dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of commercial space. Mitigation of traffic impacts remains the principle issue that needs to be resolved with the Area B, C, and D rezonings. On May 30th and June 5th, VDOT set forth the transportation improvements it required to support the Area B and Area C rezonings (Affachment B and C, respectively). County staff agrees with VDOT's lists of required improvements and recommends that the applicants assure the Board that VDOT's concerns will be satisfied before the Board approves these rezonings. (Note: staff continues to have concerns with Area B's design concept and the Commission's split decision provides no clear direction on Area B's design concept.) Attachments D, E, and F are the proffers for Area B, C, and D (respectively) and represent the efforts ofindividual applicants to meet the concerns raised by staff, VDOT, and the Commission. These proffers were submitted between July 3~d and 8th. Submittal of these proffers so close to the Board's July 16th meeting has not allowed staff to fully analyze and discuss these proffers with the applicants. Staff provided the applicants detailed comments on their proffers on July 10th. The comments advised the applicants that changes to the substance and the wording of the proffers were necessary in order to clearly and fully address the identified impacts. (See the Bold print within Attachments 13, E, and F). It will be unlikely that staff will have time to review, correct, and/or advise the Board on any additional proffer submittals prior to the Board's July 16th meeting. Therefore, staff views the current proffer submittals as incomplete and Cannot recommend that the Board accept them. Finally, Attachment G summarizes staff's continuing concerns related to improvements that should be provided to offset impacts generated by the individual projects. In this attachment, VDOT's and staff's concerns are summarized in the first column. In the third and fourth columns, staff has summarized the applicant's efforts :to mitigate the individual Concern and an assessment of that mitigation effort. Attachment H is a map showing not only the reCommended and proposed road improvements, but also where the appliCants have agreed (in concept) to make the necessary improvements. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map =B. VDOT's Recommendations for Area B (June 5, 2003) C. VDOT's Recommendations for Area C (May 30, 2003) D. Proffers for.Area B with staff comments E. Proffers for Area C with staff cOmments F. Proffers forArea D with staff comments G. Analysis of recommended improvements and proffered.mitigation H. Map summarizing the VDOT required/recommended improvements and the road committed to by the applicant. .'.F Attachment A N Hi mead Dr Vicinity Map inch equals 699.996906 feet '6/05/2003 13:21 FA~ ATTACH MENT B t't'O~'klx~ I. GZ 'ON 'JOOV 3'iblVP, F:IS'I¥_-IO A-LNrIo0 ~0 J,-IO~blO ~FLL I::I0=! A'INO J. ISO~(3 biO.4 CO ONIIZEALTH of VIR(}INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VOOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22g'11 JAMES L. BRYAN ' RESIDENT ENGINEER ]mae 5, 2003 Mr. Bob Tucker County Executive 401 Mclutire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject:. Hollymead Town C~ter Ar~ B Proffm~s Dear Bob, The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the proffers submittedfor the Hollymead Town Center, Area B (ZMA 01-19). We believe that additional proffers are needed to adequately.mitigate the impacts of the development on US 29, particularly at the prOposed signet opposite the entrance to Holly Memomsl Cardem Cemetery. All proffers should be submitted in a~"seamless", or integrated manner, i.e. proffers pertaining to Areas A, B, C, and D inclusive. " VDOT staff believes that it is possible to achieve a tolerable level of Service (C to D)at the proposed intersection of US 29 and Access Road A, and mitigate the proposed Area B impacts at nearby intersections the following improvements are implemented in a phased approach: · Construction of the crossover at Access Road A in accordance with Attachment A · Two additional through lanes on US 29, One in each direction, f~om North Hollymead Drive, to Aig~rt Road · An extension of North Hollymead Drive west of US 29, and connection with an extension of Access Road C. · The extension of Access Road C tn a signalized connection with Airport Road. · The extension of Access Road A to Route 743 or ROute 606. Participation in a CDA for the purpose of funding regional transportation infrastructure improvements that may be identified through a future Hoflymead Community Master Plan process. We will convene a meeting at the Cha~Iottesville Residency on June 9, 2003, at 9 a.na~ in o~der to discuss ~ese issues in greater detail. ' ' Sincerely, Don Askew Wayne Cilimberg Wendell Wood Steve Blaine Mark Ch'sham FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY ATTACHMENT B Attachment A: The following improvements are required to ensure a safe and adequate crossover at the proposed location o£ Access Road A. Dual left turn la.es on 291~ and a single right ~'~ lane on 29 SB, at the intersection of US 29 and Access Road A Dual left an~fial right mm lanes on Access Road A~ at the ~tersection with US 29 The southbo~tt lanes o£US 29 m~st be recomtmcted to the profile grade of the northbound I~es, ming current desig~ standard~. The limits ofthis reconstruction shall not be less ~- 1000' North and South of the proposed crossover. · An add/riCh gh lane in each direction shall be cons~uoted from 1000' North of the proposed ~over to 1000' South of the proposed crossover~:;~,0-as to provide six through lan~.:~ · All widen~n~::~provements must be done to the outside ortho,existing four Izn~ section. · Two lanes q~noxthbound and southbound traffic must be mainfafned at ~ times dining the constru~on. . , ~, .~ _ . , · The numbe~;~:length, and geometrics of all turn lanes at the proposed intersection shall be determined by VDOT sm.ff. The applicant shall bear the full cost of these improvements, which shall include the design and installation of the proposed signal, as well as any costs associated with integrating the new signal into the VDOT's signal control system. The plans shall be in general accord with the VDOT plans for the Rome 29 widening, which can be obtained from V'DOT staff. The applicant's en~in~eer will be required to submit plans for VDOT approval, and these plans must indicate the attainment of sight distance req~ements,at the proposed crossover. The sight distance shall be measured from the back Of the'95e' percentile queue, as determined VDOTstaff.. The cost of any additional requ/rcmcnfs or improvements deemed necessary in the course of site plan-~ewshall be paid by the spplicant --- In addition, a hi.ay p~'mit will be x~atnimd prior to any activity on VDOT right-of-way, including the necessary bonding for proffered construction improvements. Philip A. Schucet COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLO'I-I'ESVILLE VA 22911 ATTACHMENT C JAMES L. BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER May30,2003 .Mr. Michael Barnes Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Hollymead Town Center Area C Proffers Dear Mr. Barnes, The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the proffers submitted for the Hollymead Town Center, Area C (ZMA 01-20). The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Ramey Kemp and Associates/' for the entire Hollymead Town Center did not consider each ZMA application individually, nor did i~' evaluate the level of service that would be attained if Area C were approved with the proffers dated May 12, 2003. The traffic study does provide an assessment of conditions without any development of the Hollymead Town Center (the background conditions). According to Ramey Kemp and Associates, the worst "background" levels of service at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard, in 2005 and 2008, will be C and D respectively. The traffic study also evaluates the conditions with the approval of the entire Town Center, including improvements similar to the currently proffered improvements from both Area C and Area B. If all the ZMA applications are approved with the current proffers, the level of service is predicted to reach F by the year 2005 at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. If Area C were to be approved in the absence of Areas A and B, the traffic impacts of Area C on US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard would need to be mitigated. Although the traffic study did not consider Area C as a stand-alone proposal, our professional opinion is that the following improvements are necessary to maintain the background levels of service at Timberwood Boulevard: Two additional through lanes on US 29, one in each direction, from 1000' South of Timberwood Boulevard to Airport Road. Sufficient funds to construct an extension of the Access Road C to Airport Road with a signal at this intersection. Dual left mm lanes on 29 NB and a single right mm lane on 29 SB, at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. Dual left and dual right turn lanes on Timberwood Boulevard EB, at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. -' - - TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21s* CENTURY Hollymead Town Center Area C Proffer Response Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT C Participation in a CDA for the purpose of funding regional transportation in~astmcture improvements that may be identified through a future Hollymead Community Master Plan process. Residency staffbel~eves that the conceptual design of Timberwood Boulevard and Ridge Road, including the roundabouts, will have adequate capacity. The actual design of these facilities should be evaluated in the context of a site plan review. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, Err Transportation Planning Engineer cc via emailJuandiego Wade Glenn Brooks 8 ATTACHI~ENT D ZMA-01-019 PROFFERS Hollymead Town-Center Regional Service g,a[&~ July 3, 2003 '~ TAX MAP PARCELS 32-41D (part), 42B (part), 42C (part), 42D, 42E, 43, 43A(part) and 44 (part) 24.7 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners, or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions hsted below which shall only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as Regional Service Area B on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some of the above referenced tax map parcels (the "Property"). 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 Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B, (Sheets A-1, A- 2, and A-6 of 7 only), prepared by Rivarma Engineering &Surveying, PLC, revised February 15, 2002, last revised April 29,2003 ("Application Plan"). The owners have presented, as part of their rezoning appliCations, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning actions they are seeking. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustratiOns submitted as part of Applicant's rezoning application, other than the Application Plan as defined above, shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. The owners reserve the right to reconfigure the outparcel improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive- through window features that are the subject ofSP 01~63 and SP 01-64 and as shown on the Application Plan in order to: i) comply with conditions imposedby such Special Use Permits, and ii) assure compliance with ARB requirements. [Engineering comment: Proffered plans are missing the stormwater management concept master plans, which discussions have indicated would include on-site supplemental BMP's.] The owners of Area B, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner") shall cause completiOn of the following road improvements: [These roads should be constructed to VDOT standards and either be accepted by VDOT or be bonded for VDOT~s acceptance] A. Access Road A, as depicted on the Application Plan, across from the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery at US Route 29 up to the western 9 ZMA-01-019 Attachment D Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B boundary of Area B. This shall include the two eastbound lanes located on Area A pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and the County as part of the Area B site plan. Access Road A also shall include dual left and dual fight turn lanes at the intersection with Route 29. [Engineering comment: Road A is a necessary part of site, and site access, and will be required with the site plan. (Note that VDOT is currently requiring these improvements, along with other improvements not proffered, in order to obtain the new entrance and cross-over on Rt. 29.)] B. Dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, from northbound Route 29 into Access Road A. The dual left turn lanes and signalization at Route 29 and Access Road A shall include median cut and cross- over construction at the Hollymead Memorial Gardens Cemetery location, as scheduled in coordination with VDOT. All mm movements shall be signaled at the intersection of Route 29 and Access Road A, as approved by VDOT. [Engineering comment: Left turn lanes and signalization on Rt. 29 are a necessary requirement of the site access, and will be required with the site plan. (Note that VDOT is currently requiring these improvements, along with other improvements not proffered, in order to obtain the new entrance and cross-over on Rt. 29.)] C. The Owner proffers to dedicate land ~'~ '~"~ ~-*~-~ "'~ ....... ,,,, ~..~,..a,a ~,~,~:~ ~m~ ,~:~,~-- ~, ~ .... a ~d co~tmct a third t~ou~ lane on Route ~ .................................~ consis of lane width, shoulder and drainage improvements) southbo~d ~om ~e no.hem bo~d~ of the ~ope~ to the enm~ce road, (Access Road A) at ~e Prope~'s southm bo~d~. The Omer also shall de.cate land or cause to be de.cared (to t~e deceleration l~e consisting of a 200 foot taper to co~ence 200 feet no~ of ~e enhance to the Access Road A from Route 29, ii) ~ acceleration lane consist~g ora 100 foot taper beg~g at the intersection of Access Road A ~d Route 29, ~d iii) a deceleration l~e consist~g of 100 foot taper to co~ence 100 feet no~h of the no,hem en~ce to ~ea B. [Engineering comment: The right turn deceleration lanes are a necessary part of the site access, and will be required with the site plan. The through lane, as proffered, may be a public safety hazard, if it does not also come with the vertical profile corrections currently required by VDOT. See the last comment from engineering, below.] lin our prior comments we asked the owners to delete the "to the extent not currently included within VDOT existing right-of-way passages, and also to include drainage as part of the third lane improvements.] 2 10 ZMA-01-019 Attachment D Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B The road improvements listed in 2A, 2B and 2C above shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and apprOved by VDOT. [Engineering comment: Plan approval is always required prior to VDOT permits for construction, and will be required prior to site plan approvals.] All road improvements listed in proffer 2 above shall be substantially completed ["substantially completed" needs to be defined, if the term is to remain] prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in Area B [In our prior comments, we suggested that no CO or TCO be issued until the road improvements were accepted by VDOT; depending on what "substantially completed"means, the proffer may be a relaxation of County standards]; notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in proffer 2 above shall be satisfied if the Owner has submitted plans for all such road improvements for review by VDOT, and although such improvements are not fully completed by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Area B, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance w/th plans approved by VDOT. Substantially complete for the purposes of these proffers to the extent they include signalization shall not include final activated signals which are subject to testing and synchronization according to VDOT inspection. [This sentence does not def'me "substantially completed," but only explains one circumstance that is not substantial completion] All proffers to,make road improvements or to dedicate right-of-way contained in proffers 2 and 4 of these proffers are.conditioned upon VDOT's approval ora Route 29 median cut and crossover (with dual left turn lanes and signal) at the Hollymead Cemetery location, as contemplated on the Application Plan; provided however, that Owner shall submit to VDOT plans.for such road improvements within 30 days of the rezoning and shall diligently pursue such approvals from VDOT. If VDOT shall not approve such crossover within 60 days of Owner's submission of complete plans for such road improvements, the obligations contained in proffers 2 and 4 shall be deemed satisfied. [These last two sentences were revised from the prior draft to require the Owner to submit road plans to VDOT within 30 days of the rezoning and diligently pursue the approval of the plans. The concern we noted in our prior comments still exists: VDOT approval of the road plans is stffi required within 60 days in order for PrOffers 2 and 4 to have effect, yet VDOT's approval process is not subject.to County control; in addition, the County has no control over the quality of the rOad plans that wffi be submitted, the level of scrUtiny that VDOT will give them, or how'the plans' approval wffi be '~dillgently pursued"; one might achieve "diligent pursuit" through an endless series of Comments and revisions that continues for months and still satisfy the requirements of the proffer] [Engineering comment: Substantial completion is not adequately defined. (This could be anything between a gravel surfaced access, to completed improvements accepted for state maintenance.) The proffer may hinder the County*s ability to hold approvals or certificates of occupancy pending satisfactory completion of road improvements required for public safety. The limit on: review time and approval, without obligating the developer to submit plans adequate for approval, undermines the proffer.] ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B Attachment D The owners of Area A proffer to construct the segment of Access Road A from the western boundary of Area B to its intersection with Ridge Road, also known as Access Road C and as shown on the attached conceptual plan entitled Hollymead Town Center, dated June 6, 2003 ("Master Plan"). The owners of Area A proffer to construct and dedicate Ridge Road from its intersection with Access Road A to the northern boundary of Area A (with Area C), as shown in red on the Master Plan. [These first two sentences are not valid proffers because the owners of Area A cannot make a proffer as part of this rezoning.] Construction of the sections of Access Road A and Ridge Road shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy .for Area B. [As we noted in our prior comments, the owners of Area B could proffer that a CO could not be issued within Area B until the roads above within Area A were accepted by VDOT, rather than merely constructed. In our prior comments, we suggested that this proffer state as follows: ~'No certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use within Area B until, the segment of. Access Road A from the western boundary of Area B to its intersection with Ridge Road, also known as Access Road C, as shown on the attached conceptual plan entitled '~Hollymead Town Center," dated June 6, 2003 (the *~Master Plan") is constructed to VDOT standards and bonded for VDOT's acceptance. No building permit shall be issned for any use within Area B until the segment of Ridge Road from its intersection with Access Road A to the northern boundary of Area A as shown on the Master Plan is either constructed to VDOT's standards, or a sufficient bond or other form of surety is provided to the County in an amount sufficient to assure its construction and VDOT's acceptance."] This section of Ridge Road shall be constructed initially to accommodate two travel lanes (one in each direction) and a bicycle lane only (without parallel parking and sidewalks). The area to be dedicated however shall be sufficient to accommodate the Main Street design contemplated in the Daggett & Grigg conceptual plan incorporated in CPA-098-03. [The area to be dedicated needs to be determined by the County; the Main Street design contemplated in the Daggett & Grigg conceptual plan is too general; the proffered design needs to be more specific] If the owners of Area A refuse after request from the County to dedicate land sufficient for Ridge Road as ....... t- .......be constructed and accepted by VDOT as provided herein [and~the ~'herein' anticipates that the first part of this proffer will be revised consistent with these comments], then the Owner shall pay the costs to acquire such land, which costs shall include VDOT's normal costs of acquiring by condemnation, including land acquisition~ engineering, surveying, reasonable attorneys feeS, and tv. ee. nstr-.:et the cost of construction of this section of Ridge Road~ and other related expenses! [Although we have commented on the language itself, this proffer does not assure that the road system will be in place; it only means that the costs for the roads will be paid to the County, and the County will then have to construct the road system] Notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in this paragraph 4 shall be satisfied if plans for all such road improvements have been submitted for review by VDOT and although such improvements ~r~ ,~,, r.., ...... ~+~a .......... ., ....~. ...... ~ accepted by VDOT prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Area B, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy all costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Jif this ZMA-01-019 Attachment D Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B latter scenario occurs (satisfaction of proffer by submittal of plans and bonding~ there is no assurance as to when the road system would actually be constructed, yet the Area B CO~s will be issued with their resulting traffic impacts] [Engineering comment: The Hmitation of the future dedication to the CPA plan concept may not provide adequate right-of-way, as contemplated in current discussions. Also, the limitation of the proffer to bonding, without cooperation from the property owner where the road is to be built, obligates the county to condemn land and build the road for private development, and does not guarantee a road at the time of the traffic impacts. Furthermore, it should be clear that technical road and drainage design will need to accommodate future development.] Owner proffers to contribute $50,000.00 to the County or VDOT for the purposes of fimding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $50,000.00 contribution shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for improvements on Area B and if not expended for such purpose after three (3) years from the date of these proffers, such funds shall be refunded to the Owner. [While it may be unlikely, the proffer could expire if a building permit is not sought within 3 years from the date of the proffers. We suggest that the proffer merely state that the $50,000 will be contributed within a specified period after requested by the County, and that if not expended for those purposes within 3 years from the date of the rezoning, the funds will be refunded to the owner] [Engineering comment: A lack of timely coutributions from other developments may require the county to fund the regional transportation study.] Upon the requestof the County, Owner shall consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending or maintaining Route 29 and roads and other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may not be limited to improvements to Route 29 bom the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Roada o~ the extension of Ridge Road as depicted on the Master Plar~ to the south and across the Rivanna River to connect to Berkmar Drive. This proffer shall only apply if all of the owners of land within the Hollymead Town Center (constituting approximately 180 acres, as depicted in the Master Plan have joined or been caused to join the same or a similar CDA for the purposes described herein. [This proffer may be a nullity; excusing Area BPs participation in the CDA unless every other parcel in Hollymead Town Center participates jeopardizes the potential viability of the CDA and provision of the improvements needed to address the traffic impacts; we know that Areas C andD will not proffer to include residential parcels~ so the County would have to include the residential parcels involuntarily in order for this proffer to have effect. If the participafion-Only-ff-all-other-properties-participate clause be amended to state that they'll participate only if all non-residentialparcels are included~ then this section of the proffer could be more amenable] ~ ~'~ ~" n ..... ,~,~. .... ,~. ..... ~. ZMA-01-019 Attachment D Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B 4-ha ql)l ...... O~ .... .t.a ,1~..! .... ]'~.i .... [rl~hta deleted language appears to be re un a t,-v, ........................... z ~t- .......... ~. ............ gxcg sentence is unnecessary since it is a restatement of state law] [EngineeringC°mment: The proffer is too limited. If any developer chooses to withhold a part of their property from involvement in the CDA, then the proffer does not apply.] o There are two (2) pedestrian walkways located within parking areas depicted on the Application Plan that provide linkage between proposed building structures Anchor A and proposed-retail Building 1. These pedestrian walkways within the parking areas shall be tree-lined, by planting street trees not more than every sixty feet (60') on center.' [The width, type and design of the walkways should be stated. The proffer also should state when the walkways will be completed, and the completion date should be tied to a real event, such as the issuance of a CO for either Anchor A or Building 1, rather than an arbitrary date] [Engineering comment: Design requirements, such as maximum slopes, minimum widths, and surface materials should be specified.] [Planning comment: A 60 feet spacing is too great. Planning would prefer a spacing of 40 to 50 feet.] Submitted as-of the 3rd day of July, 2003, by: [Engineering comment: Significantly missing are the following minimum improvements required by VDOT in their letter of 5 June 2003 in order to allow the new entrance and median cross-over at Access Road A; reconstruction of the southbound lanes of Rt. 29 to the profile grade of the northbound lanes (limited to 1000~ north and south of the proposed crossover an addition through lane in each direction 1000~ north and 1000~ south of the proposed crossover. (Part of the south lane is proffered above in 2C.) 6 14 ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B Attachment D Other improvement requested by VDOT ina phased approach for the entire HoHymead Town Center included the connection of Access Road C (Ridge Road) to Airport Road and North Hollymead Drive~ and connection of Access Road A to Rt. 743 or Rt. 606.] DRG Development LLC By: Jeffrey B. Dierman, Manager River Heights Associates Limited Parmership, a Connecticut limited parmership By: Wendell Wood, General Partner M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of NYC Land Trust Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of NYC Land Trust M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of GLF Land Trust Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of GLF Land Trust M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of MMS Land Trust ZMA-01-019 Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area B Attachment D Robert M. Callaghan, Trustee of MMS Land Trust Charles W. Hurt, Trustee of Post Office Land Trust M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of the One Ninth Land Trust M. Clifton McClure, Trustee of the Sixty- four 616 Land Trust 8 16 ATTACHMENT E ZMA-01-20 PROFFERS Hollymead Town Center Area C July 7, 2003 TAX MAP 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, 46 37.1 Acres Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Code (the "Code"), the owners, or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below which shall only be applied, except as specifically set forth herein to the area identified as Regional Service Area C on the Application Plan, (defined below) comprising all or some of the above referenced tax map parcels (the ,Property"). 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 rezomng request: Development shall be in general accord with the Application Plan entitled Rezoning Application Plans for Hollymead Town Center Regional Service Area C, (Sheets A-l, A- 2, only), prepared by Rivanna Engineering & Surveying, PLC, revised, last revised, July 7, 2003 ("Application Plan'). The owa~s4m~ Owner has presented, as part of their rezoning applications, a number of conceptual plans and illustrations for various purposes, but principally to provide justification for the rezoning actions they are seeking. Unless specifically referenced in these proffers, all plans and illustrations submitted as part ofApplicant's rezoning application,.other than the Application Plan as defined above, shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plans and illustrations shall not be deemed proffers. The owners reserve the right to reconfigure the internal block improvements, consisting of buildings, parking and drive aisles and drive-through window features and as shown on the Application Plan in order to: i) comply with conditions imposed by Special Use Permits, and ii) assure compliance with ARB requirements. [Engineering comment: The plans revised July 7, 2003 have not been received for review, but ff they are the same as plans previously reviewed, they are missing the stormwater management concept master plans, which discussions have indicated would include on-site supplemental BMP's.] The owner of Area C, as shown on the Application Plan (the "Owner') shall cause completion of the following road improvements: [These roads should be constructed to VDOT standards and either be accepted by VDOT or be bonded for VDOT's acceptance] A. Construction of Timberwood Boulevard, as depicted on the Apphcation Plan, across from *~'~.... - . ~'... .... ..~.~ ~,...~,.~ ~ -'~ ~o.~ existing terminus [?] at US Route 29 up to the 17 ZMA-01-020 Attachment E Hollymead Town Center Area C furore extension of the road in the Airport Road improvement project [If the full extent of Timberwood Boulevard to be constructed is shown on the Application Plan, this is okay as revised, otherwise its new terminus within ltollymead Town Center needs to be clearly stated] T~'.'s The constructed improvements shall include the two eastbound lanes located on Area C pursuant to road plans approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT') and the County as part of the Area C site plan. Timberwood Boulevard also shall include dual left lanes with one thru lane and one continuous fight mm lane at the intersection with Route 29. [Any other improvements need to be specified] [Engineering comment: Timberwood Road on the site is a necessary part of site~ and site access, and will be required with the site plan. The lane configurations described in the proffer are not understood. The plans show a four lane section for part of the road~ and a two lane section for the rest, with turn lanes additional. The proffer seems to indicate something else. It is suggested the plan be referenced instead.] [Engineering comment: In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the necessary improvements identified by VDOT in their letter of 30 May 2003 require a signal at Timberwood Road and Airport Road, which has not been proffered.] B. Construction of dual left turn lanes at the intersection of Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard, from northbound Route 29 into Timberwood Boulevard. The dual left turn lanes shall be 350 feet in length with 400 feet of taper lane. [Engineering comment: Left turn lanes into the site are a necessary part of site access, and will be required with the site plan. The turn lane and taper lengths will be determined with final road plans to be reviewed and approved by VDOT.] C. Signalization at Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29 shall include reconstruction at the Forest Lakes Subdivision location, as scheduled in coordination with VDOT. All turn movements shall be signaled at the intersection of Route 29 and Timberwood Boulevard, as approved by VDOT. xx~., ,~ ...m..~ ~'~'~'-.~J~"am' ,~..,~...~ The existing intersection exiting Forest Lakes shall be reconstructed to maintain the dual left lanes and add a thru lane according to the final design in the previous paragraph. [Engineering comment: Intersection improvements and signalization of the new entrance and turn lanes are a necessary part of site access, and will be required with the site plan.] D. The Owner proffers to dedicate land~..,t*-' ~..-~..~ ~.~.-."~*~* ..~'-.. ....... ~.~ ~..j*~ '~ne!uded witlt~ xrr, r~a- ,,,~.~...~ ..~,.~.~ ..~, ..... ~ 'and construct a third through lane on Route 2 18 ZMA-01-020 Attachment E Hollymead Town Center Area C 29 o~.:*~a *.. ~ ...... :a4-1. ,,,a ~.....~.~ .... ~.. ' ting fl ~. ................................ : cons~s o ane width, shoulder and drainage improvements) southbound from entrance road, (Timberwood Boulevard) at the Property's northern boundary. The Owner also shall dedicate land or cause to be dedicated (re *~'~ ~4-~-4- -~+ ....... 4.' ..... :4.~.;_ nzl-.~ ~:,~ · .sh ...... ~) and con tract. 0 a continuous through lane 500-'feet to the southern boundary, ii) a taper lane consisting of a 200 foot taper beginning at the southern boundary and Route 29, and iii) a continuous right mm lane from the intersection of Timberwood Boulevard to the right-in at the S_southern boundary at the northern entrance to Area B a-~.~.~ ~ ..... ;~, ..... 4-: ....... ~.+ ,,.-- ;~..a 9~eOo~.[The last two sentences are not proffers] [We asked the owners of Area B to delete the "to the extent not currently included within VDOT existing right-of-way passages, and also to include drainage as part of the third lane improvements.] [Engineering comment: In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the necessary improvements identified by VDOT in their letter of 30 May 2003 require a through lane in each direction on Rt. 29 from Airport Road to 1000 feet south of Timberwood Boulevard. As written, this proffer only provides a portion of the southbound lane.] E. Construction of one additional continuous right turn northbound lane starting 1090' feet south of Timberwood Boulevard at the :location of the beginning of the turn and taper of Worth Crossing and R4 Route 29. [Engineering comment: This proffer only provides a portion of the northbound lane improvement identified by VDOT in their letter of 30 May 2003.1 The road improvements listed in 2A, 2B, 2C 2D, and 2E above shall be constructed in accordance with road plans submitted by the Owner and approved byVDOT. [Engineering comment: Plan approval is always required prior to VDOT permits for construction, and will be required prior to site plan approvals.] [Planning Comment: Access Road C, between Area A and its intersection with Timberwood, should also be completed with the first phase.] All road improvements listed in proffer 2 above shall be substantially completed ["substantially completed" needs to be defined, if the term is to remain] prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy in Area C [We have suggested to Area B owners that the proffer state that no CO or TCO be issued until the road improvements were accepted by VDOT; depending on what %ubstantially ZMA-01-020 Attachment E Hol/ymead Town Center Area C completed" means, the proffer may be a relaxation of County standards]; notwithstanding the foregoing, the road proffers described in proffer 2 above shall be satisfied if the Owner has submitted plans for all such road improvements for review by VDOT, and although such improvements are not fully completed by the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Area C, sufficient bond has been supplied to satisfy al/costs to complete such improvements in accordance with plans approved by VDOT. Substantially complete for the purposes of these proffers to the extent they include signalization shall not include final activated signals which are subject to testing and synchronization according to VDOT inspection. [This sentence does not define '~substantially eompleted~" but only explains one circumstance that is not substantial completion]'-~-All proffers to make road improvements or to dedicate right-of-way contained in proffer 2 of these proffers are conditioned upon V-DOT's approval ora Route 29 imprOvement plans (with dual left mm lanes and signal) at the Timberwood Boulevard intersection location, as contemplated on the Application Plan; provided however, that_Owner shall submit to VDOT plans for such road improvements within 30 days of the rez0ning and shall diligently pursue such approvals from VDOT. IfVDOT shall not apP~bve such plans within 60 *days of Owner's submission Of complete plans for such road improvements, the obligations contained in proffer 2 'shall be deemed satisfied. [These last two-sentences were revised from the prior draft to. require the Owner to submit road plans to VDOT within 30 days of the rezoning and diligently pursue the approval of the plans. The concern we noted in our prior comments to Area B owners still exists: VDOT approval of the road plans is still required within 60 days in order for Proffers 2 and 4 to have effect, yet VDOT's approval process is not subject to County control; in addition, the County has no control over the quality of the road plans that will be submitted, the level of scrutiny that VDOT will give them, or how the plans' approval wffi be "diligently pursued"; one might achieve 66 ,, diligent pursuit through an endless series of comments and revisions that continues for months and still satisfy the requirements of the proffer] [Engineering comment: Substantial completion is not adequately defined. (This could be anything between a gravel surfaced access, to completed improvements accepted for state maintenance.) The proffer may hinder the County's ability to hold approvals or certificates of occupancy pending satisfactory completion of road improvements required for public safety. The limit on review time and approval, without obligating the developer to submit plans adequate for approval, undernfines the proffer° The reliance on bonding does not guarantee road improvements at the time of the traffic impacts.] Owner proffers to contribUte $10,000.00 to the County or VDOT for the purposes of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. The $10,000.00 contribution shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for improvements on Area C and if not expended for such purpose after three (3) years from the date of these proffers, such funds shall be refimded to the Owner. [While it may be unlikely, the proffer could expire ff a building permit is not sought within 3 years from the date of the proffers. We suggest that the proffer merely 2O ZMA-01-020 Attachment E Hollymead Town Center Area C state that the $50,000 will be contributed within a specified period after requested by the County, and that if not expended for those purposes within 3 years from the date of the rezoning, the funds will be refunded to the owner] [Engineering comment: A lack of timely contributions from other developments may require the county to fund the regional transportation study.] o .......... a ...... S Hot fl v ............ o .......................... ., ......rc~._ e su~oestede~ ...... ~. ~. ,.., ........ ~ .... :*~ ~--~- expenses.[This sentence is not a proffer] Suggested language for the cash contribution proffer: At the time of issuance of a certificate of ocCUpancy of each dwelling unit, the OWner shah contribute $1,000 to Albemarle County to be Used by the Coun .ty to acquire land for, and/or to construct, a fire and rescue station that.will serve the Hollymead area, If the fund is not exhausted by July 16, 2013, aH unexpended funds contributed shall be returned to the Owner or its designee. ["Residential unit" should be changed to "dwelling unit" to eliminate any possible confusion as to whether a block of townhouses was a "residential unit"; it is unknown what the $1,000 per unit amount is based on] [Engineering comment: Regular payments from a CDA would contribute significantly more than the one-time payment proposed. A 20 year comparison indicates that this initial payment would be less than 30% of what these residential units would contribute to a CDA.] Upon the request of the County, for any parcel used for non-residential purposes [the Owner wants to include the parcels that are "currently" zoned Light Industry as well - the proffer should refer to the parcels under their new zonin~l the Owner shall consent to a Community Development Authority ("CDA") established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq. of the Code of Virginia ("Code") to be created for the purpose of financing, funding, planning, establishing, constructing, reconstructing, enlarging, extending or maintaining Route 29 and roads and other improvements associated therewith, which shall include, but may not be limited to improvements to Route 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Roada o~ the extension of Ridge Road as depicted on the M~ter Plan~ to the south and across the Rivanna River to connect to Berkmar Drive. This proffer shall only apply if all of the owners of land within the Hollymead Town Center (constituting approximately 180 acres, as depicted in the Master Plan have joined or been caused to join the same or a similar CDA for the purposes described herein. [This proffer may be a nullity; excusing Area C's participation in the CDA unless every other parcel in Hollymead Town Center participates 5 21 ZMA-01-020 Attachment E Hollymead Town Center Area C jeopardizes the potential viability of the CDA and provision of the improvements needed to address the traffic impacts; we know that Areas C itself is excluding residential parcels and Area D will not proffer to include residential parcels, so the County would have to include the residential parcels involuntarily in order for this proffer to have effect] :" ""';~" ~" ~' ..... '"'"~'~' .... +~' ..... t. .... ~.~..~,~.....,r d lang app dant]; .....~'~"'~ *""+~'"" +~'"+ +~"~ ""+" "* .... delete uage ears to,be redun r ............................. .r -~*~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~* ......... * -*~ .... ~ [This last sentence is unnecessau s~ce it is restatement of state law] [Engineering comment: The proffer is too limited. If any developer chooses to withhold a part of their property from involvement in the CDA, then the proffer does not apply.] Submitted as of the 7th day of July, 2003, by: Post Office Land Trust By: Charles W. Hurt, Trustee Post Office Land Trust By: Shirley L. Fisher, Trustee PROFFER FORM Attachment F Orig/nal Proffer _X Amended Proffer (Amendment # __) Date: July 16, 2003 ZMA # 02 - 02 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32-46 24 Acres to be rezoned from RA to NMD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning 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. (1) At the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy of each ~es'-'dent'~ dwelling unit henceforth, the Owner shall to-contribute $1,200 to Albemarle County an c:crow fund estab!'.'shcd by )2bcmarle t~ .... ~.~ ~ ...... ,,~, ~ .......... , ,...., ~ ...... ,..~ ~,,. .... 1~ ,,, be used by the County and VDOT for (1) public right of way improvements on Route 29 between Airport Road (Rt. 649) and the southern edge of the frontage of the Hollymead Town Center on Route 29, or (2) any other transportation related improvements relating to the Hollymead Town Center and the Route 29 North corridor. ["Residential unit" should be changed to "dwelling unit" to eliminate any possible confusion as to whether a block of townhouses was a "residential unit"; it is unknown what the $1,200 per unit amount is based onl LLC or ~.ts des:'gnee. If the fund is not exhausted by July 16, 2013, all unexpended funds contributed shall be returned to Birckhead LLC or its designee. [Engineering comment: Regular payments from a CDA would contribute significantiy more than the one-time payment proposed. A 20 year comparison indicates that this initial payment would be only about 30% of what these residential units would contribute to a CDA.] shall contribute $6~000 within ]specified period] after requested by the County for the purpose of funding a regional transportation study for the Route 29 corridor. If the fund is not expended for those purposes within 3 years from the date of the rezoning, the unexpended funds will be refunded to Birckhead LLC or its designee. [The proposed language tracks the proposed language for a similar contribution proffered by Area B~ it is unknown what the $6,000 amount is based onl [Engineering comment: A lack of timely contributions from other developments may require the county to fund the regional transportation study.] (3) ~' .... y ...... '~"~' .... " .... '---" a: part ef ~a.{A 92 92, to -"~*~*" ~ a Cammuni~' Development AmhoriW Upon the request of the County, for any parcel used for non-residential purposes, the Owner shall consent to a Community Development Authority ( CDA ) established pursuant to Section 15.2-5152, et seq., of the Code of Virginia should such an authority be established for the purpose of funding ~ransportation improvements relating to the Hollymead Town Center and the Route 29 North corridor, including but not limited to Route 29 North, roads within ltollymead Town Center~ and roads and other improvements associated therewith. Attachment F (4) After construction of the greenway path and residential un/ts in the areas identified as Blocks I and III on the Application Plan, to deed dedicate to Albemarle County a one hundred (100) foot wide greenway within Block I as measured from the center of the stream on the western edge of Block I, and a fifty (50) foot wide greenway within Block III as measured from the center of the stream on the western edge of Block III. The fifty (50) foot wide greenway with/n Block III will terminate at the Greenway Park located in the northern portion of Block III. [The width, type and design of the path should be stated. The proffer also should state when the path will be completed, and the completion date should be tied to a real event, such as the issuance of a CO within Block I or II1, rather than an arbitrary date.] [Engineering comment: see comment for Area B] [Planning comment: A diagram showing where these areas of dedication will be located will be very helpful in clarifying their location during the site plan review. Also maintain issues should be clairfied.] Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Printed Name of Attomey-in-Fact Date Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper power of Attorney) OR '8o E~ ID II N Dr Future Roads Required by VDOT Recommended by VDOT ~ ~ Proposed by Applicants Required By VDOT, Proposed by Applicants 1 inch equals 700 feet July 3, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depanmer~t of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 Katurah Roell 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: ZMA-0t-20 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41 D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 (Area C) SP-03-30 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 Dear Mr. Roell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, made the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. · ZMA-O1-20 Hoilymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 4rD, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 - Recommended denial. by a vote of 3:2. The Commission felt that the following five issues need to be addressed: 1. Provision for interparcel connections north to Airport Road (via Access Road C), south to North Hollymead Drive (via Access Road C) .and west to Dickerson Road (via Access Road A). 2. Provision to participate in a Community Development Authority that would help fund regional transportation improvements. 3. Participation in a regional transportation study. 4. Resolution of the fire/rescue facility issue. 5. The design for Area A, especially the mixed use area, should be further refined and included as part of the other rezoning approvals. SP-03-30 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 4~ D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46- Recommended approval, by a vote of 5:0. contingent upon the approval of ZMA-01-20. The Commission also approved the waiver requests to Section 21.7 and Section 4.11 .'1 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on July 16, 2002. 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 m e (434) 296-5823. Planner Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Don Franco Amelia McCutley Steve AIIshouse The Kessler Group July 3, 2003 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depanmerlt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 Katurah Roell 195 Riverbend Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 03:36 RE: ZMA-01-20 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 (Area C) SP-03-30 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 Dear Mr. Roell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 24, 2003, made the following recommendations to the Board Of Supervisors. · ZMA-01-20 Hollymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46- Recommended denial. by a vote of 3:2. The Commission felt that the following five issues need to be addressed: 1. Provision for interparcel connections north to Airport Road (via Access Road C), south to North Hollymead Drive (via Access Road C) .and west to Dickerson Road (via Access Road A). 2. Provision to participate in a Community Development Authority that would help fund regional transportation improvements. 3. Participation in a regional transportation study. 4. Resolution of the fire/rescue facility issue. The design for Area A. especially the mixed use area, should be further refined and included as part of the otl~er rezoning approvals. SP-03-30 Hoilymead Town Center; Tax Map 32, Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46- Recommended approval, by a vote of 5:0, contingent upon the approval of ZMA-01-20. The Commission also approved the waiver requests to Section 21.7 and Section 4.11.1. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on July 16, 2002. 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. tf you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesita(e to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerel Michael Barnes Planner Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Don Franco Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse The Kessler Group STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: MICHAEL BARNES JUNE 24, 2003 JULY 16, 2003 ZMA 01-20 Hol!ymead Town Center, Area C - Applicant, The Virginia Land Co. SP 03-30 Residential Uses in a PD-MC District, Area C Waiver Requests to Section 21.7 and Section 4.11.1 ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Center, Area D - Applicant, The Kessler Group Waiver Requests to Section 21.7 and Section 4.11.1 ORGANIZATION OF STAFF REPORT: This staff report evaluates the applications for Areas C & D in two separate sections. The application for Area C (ZMA 01 ~20 & SP 03-30) is evaluated first. The application pertaining to Area D (ZMA 02-20) comprises the second section of the report. Please see Attachment A for the areas under consideration during this public hearing. The Planning Commission has already held a public hearing, on March 11, 2003, for the other two areas under rezoning consideration in the Hollymead Town Center (Area A, ZMA 01-18 - The United Land Corporation; and Area B, ZMA 01-19 The Dierman Realty Corporation). The Commission accepted Area A's request for indefinite deferral so that the applicant could resolve the outstanding issues raised in the staff report. A Commission motion to recommend approval of Area B to the Board failed in a tie vote. To date, Area A's applicant has not resubmitted any materials for staff to review. The Board has not heard the Area B application, but it is scheduled for a public hearing concurrent with these two applications on July 16, 2003. Due to the length and complexity of this report, staff has included an index for the reader's use. This index is after the attachments. ZMA 01~20 HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER, AREA C - APPLICANT, THE VIRGINIA LAND Co. SP 03-30 RESIDENTIAL USES IN A PD-MC DISTraCT, AREA C WAIVER REQUESTS TO SECTION 4.11.1 AND 21.7 A~eLICATION OVERVIEW Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, The Virginia Land Company, requests a rezoning of acres 37.13 acres from C-1 [Commercial], LI [Light Industrial] and RA [Rural Areas] to PD-MC [Planned Development- Mixed Commercial] to allow for a mixed-use development. As proposed, the project would have up to 275,000 square feet of office and retail uses as well as up to 120 residential dwelling in a mixed-use environment. The apphcant has also applied for a special use permit (SP 03-30) to allow these residential uses in a PD-MC district. Finally, the applicant has requested several waivers to Section 21.7.1-3 and a waiver to Section 4.11.1. As described later in this report, Section 21.7.1-3 requires buffers from RA Districts. Section 4.11.1 does not allow for awnings, eaves, canopies, and the like to extend closer than six feet to a street. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D The applicant has provided an Application Booklet that contains the Application Plan, the Code of Development and proffers. This staff report references this booklet as opposed to the normal procedure of referencing a series of attachments. The applicant's proffers, which are intended to offset the project's off site impacts, are located at the end of the Application Booklet. Code qf Development Although the applicant for this rezoning has requested a rezoning to PD-MC and not a Neighborhood Model District (NMD), he has proffered a Code of Development to provide the standards of development for the rezoning. The Code supplements the Application Plan by setting forth the parameters within which Area C's development will be reviewed during the site plan stage. The Code has two parts - the Tables/Appendices and the Narrative. The tables and appendices are mostly numeric and set parameters (e.g., build-to lines, specific allowable uses, etc.) for development within each of the proposal's nine individual blocks (see Block Exhibit for block locations). The Narrative section creates regulations that are more qualitative in nature and usually apply to the development as a whole. Finally, the parameters in Code of Development will be used by staff to determine the degree to which the applicant can vary the final development (the site plan) fi:om the development proposed on the Application Plan. Petition for Rezoning: The applicant requests to rezone 37.13 acres fi:om LI (Light Industrial), C1 (Commercial), and RA (Rural Areas) to PD-MC [Planned Development- Mixed Commercial] to allow for a mixed- use development. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North at 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/ Community Service uses. prqffers The applicant has proffered the following items: 1. A higher set of standards for development than required for a PD-MC district, in the form of a Code of Development 2. The following road improvements prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO): a. Timberwood Drive from its intersection with Route 29 to Airport Road. b. Access Road C from the southern to the northern boundaries of Area C. c. A continuous right turn-lane southbound on Route 29 across Area C's frontage on'Route 29. d. Two (2) left turns in the northbound direction of Route 29 at the intersection of Timberwood and Route 29. 3. Provision of vehicular and pedestrian intercormections to all parcels adjacent to Area C, where the County of Albemarle deems these interconnections appropriate. 4. A limitation on the amount of square footage to be constructed that will limit uses to no more than 9,500 vehicle trips per day until two additional through lanes on Route 29 exist, one in Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 2 each direction, from Airport Road to a point 1,000 feet south of intersection of Timberwood Boulevard and Route 29. Petition for the Special Use Permit The applicant requests a special use permit to allow residential uses in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for uses permitted by special use in commercial districts (which then allows for all uses within an R- 15 (Residential) district). The properties, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 41D, 43A, 44, 45, and 46, contain 37.13 acres and are zoned LI (Light Industrial), C 1 (Commercial), and RA (Rural Areas). The proposal is located on Route 29 North at the Timberwood Boulevard/Route 29 intersection in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use/Regional Service and Mixed Use/Community Service within the Hollymead Town Center in the Hollymead Community Development Area. Character of the Area: Area C is surrounded by Area D to the west. To the north, Area C is bounded by the United States Post Office Distribution Facility, the Joe Wright property (a single-family parcel with a cell phone tower compleX), and the Route 29 Charlottesville Self-Storage facility. Route 29 forms the eastern boundary of Area C. Finally, Area A (Wendall Wood's rezoning proposal) and Area B (the Dierman proposal) are located to the south (See the vicinity map - Attachment A). The properties are wooded and dominated by a ridge running north-south through the Hollymead Town Center. There is a small pond located near Route 29 Plannin,q and Zoning aisto~: History of Rezonings and special use pertnits for TMP 32-41D ZMA 94-32 - The proffers from this early rezoning require that the owner keep a single access point across from the existing cross-over on Route 29 at Timberwood Boulevard (the entrance to Forest Lakes North). The proffers also commit the owner to providing a minimum of fifty (50) feet of public right-of-way for a connection between Route 29 and Airport Road (Route 649) as part of the development of the project. Finally, the proffers require the owner to provide access to adjoining proffers. By-right Use of the Properties: Parcel 32-41D currently is split zoned with 11.4 acres zoned C-1 and 25.73 acres zoned LI. Outside of the 11 acres of HC zoned land in Area B, Area C is the only rezoning application within the Hollymead Town Center area to have any significant by-right potential. The majority of the Town Center is currently zoned RA. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant intends to provide an integrated, mixed-use project that supports and compliments the remainder of the Hollymead Town Center as well as the Hollymead Development Area at large. The applicant believes that their design meets the goals set forth in the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03) as well as the Land Use Designations set forth in the Daggett and Grigg Plan (Attachment B). Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Rejoort for Areas C and D 3 Recommendation: Staff believes that the applicant has met the land use and site design goals and requirements Set forth in the Hollymead Town Center CPA but, has not as yet appropriately mitigated certain impacts of the development nor provided necessary public facilities.. Staff would be in a position to recommend approval of the rezoning (ZMA 01-20), the special use permit request (SP 03-30) and requested waivers to Section 21.7.1-3 and Section 4.11.1 if these impacts were mitigated. First, the applicant should mitigate Area C's external traffic impacts to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors in cOordination with the other Hollymead Town Center rezoning applications. Second, commitments should be made to help mitigate the impacts of the development on the fire and rescue provision in accordance with the County's Community Facilities Plan for the Hollymead community. STAFF ANALYSIS CONFORMITY WITH THE COMP~HENSIVE PLAN: This section assesses the ability of ZMA 01-20 to meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the rezoning request is assessed against the following components of the Comprehensive Plan: the Land Use Plan designations, any general recommendations pertaining to the Hollymead Community, thc specific recommendation from the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03), the Neighborhood Model, thc Community Facilities Plan, the Open Space Plan, and the Natural Resources section. Conformi~ with the Land Use Plan Area C is consistent with distribution of uses set out in the Hollymead CPA's Master Plan, a.k.a. the Daggett and Grigg Plan (Attachment B). The Application Plan proposes a combination of single and two-story retail stores in Blocks I and IX. This is consistent with the Mixed Use/ Regional Service uses adjacent to Route 29 called for in the Daggctt and Grigg Plan. Blocks III, IV, VII, and VIII are a mixture of multi-story office, service and retail uses as well as some apartments and townhouscs. Thus, this area is consistent with the CPA's goal for Mixed Use/ Community Service area. Finally, Blocks III and V have townhouses. This is consistent with the Urban Density Residential called for in Master Plan. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the Hollymead Community The following statements reflect 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 selected 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 should 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/~hopping and service areas. "' While the applicant has not provided a mixture of uses in the Mixed-Use/Regional Service portion of their development, they have integrated uses in the other two land use designations. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 4 Staff believes that the close proximity of the various uses will encourage alternative formS of transit to the automobile. "_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." All of Area C's roads are proposed to be lined on both sides w/th sidewalks. Thus, Area C provides road and sidewalk linkages to Areas B, A, and D to the south and west. It also provides for road and sidewalk linkages to the north to Airport Road via VDOT's extension of Timberwood Boulevard as part of the Airport Road widening project. There is another possible linkage to Airport Road via the future extension of Access Road C (a.k.a. the Ridge Road). The future extension of Access Road C will line up with the future extension of Lewis and Clark Drive, thus providing direct access between the Town Center and the North Fork Research Park. At Timberwood Boulevard intersection with Route 29, vehicular and pedestrian connections to North Forest Lakes will be possible. A pedestrian orientation, however, will likely not be possible due to the nature of traffic on Route 29. · "Developmentplans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway." After reviewing an earlier version of the Application Plan, the ARB voted to recommend approval of the building elevation and landscaping concepts. ARB staff has reviewed the subsequent iterations of the Plan and 'Code of Development. Their comments have been incorporated and will aid in achieving protection oft he Entrance Corridor. Conformity with the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amen dme nt 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 A). The CPA provides a series of specific recommendations and references a master plan developed by the Daggett and Grigg Architecture firm (Attachment B). The CPA specific recommendations ranges from descriptions of uses and densities within certain land use d/stricts, 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 Area C meets the goals of the CPA is assessed in other parts of this report and is not repeated in this section. However, the following specific criteria from the CPA that have not been addressed directly within this report are covered in this section. These criteria are in italics below: While it is desirable~for single story buildings to not exceed 65, 000 square feet, it is recognized that some much larger than 65, 000 square feet on one level, such as department stores, home improvement and supermarkets, are appropriate in the Mixed Use/Regional Service Area (see Master Plan, Figure 14A Issues of bulk, massing and pedestrian accessibility for all buildings, but particularly_for single story stores (65,000 square feet, may be addressed through various design concepts, such as building treatments, building orientation and/or other measures, so as to dilute their appearance as large, boxes and to facilitate subdividing these stores in the event of the need for re-tenanting with smaller stores). HoIlymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 5 The Code's Table B regulates the maximum footprint for a single use (See Application Booklet). Block's I and II have no limitation on the square footage which is not contrary to the CPA goals which do not regulate the maximum size of building footprints. The remaining Block has various square footage limitations which are less than 65,000 square feet. It is important to note that, while the applicant has left open the possibility for users in excess of 65,000 square feet in Blocks I and II, the applicant does not intend to provide any stores in excess of 65,000 square feet within Area C. Massing, pedestrian accessibility, building treatments, and building orientation are provided for in the Code of Development. · Roof designs shouM mitigate the visual impact of larger scale structures and associated buildings, especially considering the general location of this area along a ridgeline. · Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities should be incorporated into building design so they are not visible. · Metal buildings should not bepermitted. The applicant has worked to the satisfaction of staff to provide faCade/building elevation information and mitigation commitments relative to the location of loading docks, dumpsters, etc in the Code (See the Code Narrative section on Architecture and Table B and Appendix C). · Largeparking areas should 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 uses a cOmbination streets, travelways, landscaping, and biofilters to break up the parking lots and reduce the Visual impacts. · 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. However, the applicant intends to provide an urban cross-section along Route 29 with a 5- foot sidewalk if the County and VDOT ultimately agree to an urban cross-section. · The north/south parallel road should be designed as a "Boulevard" or "Main Street"(as depicted in Figures 4 and 5 of the Master Plan), recognizing that while carrying a higher volume of traffic, it also serves as an important Neighborhood Street within the Town Center concept. As such, the road needs to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit service and contribute positively to the character of the area. Other streets in the Town Center may be designed as a "Main Street," "Avenue," "Neighborhood Street," or "Way" depending on the character and intensity of deVelopment in the area (Master Plan, Figures 5, 6, and 7). For the "north/south parallel road" (Access Road C, a.k.a. Ridge Road), the applicant intends to provide a 50-foot curb-face to curb-face cross-section. This cross-section could ultimately accommodate four lanes of traffic (2 northbound and 2 southbound) as well as bike lanes. Since Access Road C is not directly linked in its initial phases to Airport Road and/or areas south of Area C, it is staff's and the applicant's intention to allow on-street parking in the lane adjacent to the curb. As Access Road C is directly linked to Airport Road and to Area A and points south of Area A, the on-street parking will either be eliminated or on-street parking will be restricted during peak commuting hours. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 6 Staff believes that this two phased approach will provide the character to accommodate the objectives articulated in this CPA goal while at the same time carrying a high volume of traffic, · Open space, recreation areas andpublic spaces shall beprovided to servepatrons, employees, and residents. Development of public open space/features such as a public square, traffic circles, and "pocket park(s)" should be provided throughout the Town Center area. The applicant has provided several open space amenities. In the Neighborhood Model Principle Analysis above, staff discussed the Central Plaza in Block IV, the Pocket Park in Block VIII, and the two stormwater ponds in Block I and Area D. In addition to these amenities, the applicant is proposing to provide a streetscape in the form of benches, pedestrian directories, and wider sidewalk areas at the comer of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road C. The applicant is also proposing two round-a-bouts on Timberwood Boulevard. Hopefully, VDOT will allow these round-a-bouts to be attractively landscaped. · Space shall be made available for 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 should be incorporated to a significant extent in site development, use of natural lighting within buildings, and energy efficiency. Due to the amount and scale of the grading proposed, it will be difficult if not impossible to retain any of the mature trees. The applicant has stated in the Code's narrative that they will select drought-tolerant species and apply techniques that reduce their water usage. The applicant has not indicated whether their buildings will implement the principles of sustainable design. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model Below staff assesses the Area C's ability to meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Sidewalks are provided through out the project and they are wider in the Orientation mixed-use areas. Buildings line most of the streetS. Street trees, landscaping, directories in kiosks, plazas, the building facades and other features have been geared towards a human scale that will be an inviting place for residents, shoppers and employees to walk. Neighborhood The project is based on a grid network of streets and drive aisles. The Friendly Streets and streets are intended to be as narrow as possible and create a sense of spatial Paths enclosure through the provision of street trees and build-to lines. Interconnected The grid network will provide for several connections to adjoining Streets and properties. One important interconnection that is not provided as part of Transportation this project is still needed. Access Road C will stop at Area C's property Networks line instead of extending all the way to Airport Road. Building this connection may require cooperation among all applicants for the Hollymead Town Center rezonings. Staff would like to see this additional connection made to Airport Road as well as improvements along Route 29 (see Hollymead Town Center Public Hearing -- Staff Rejport for Areas C and D Attachment C and :the analysis of"Roads" below). Parks and Open The project proposes a highly urban environment. Within that context, the Space applicant has provided a central plaza within Block IV. This plaza will be 'one of the principal open spaces in the northern portion of the Town Center. The proposal also calls for a small pocket park in Block VIII adjacent to the intersection of Timberwood Boulevard and Access Road B. The proposal also calls for landscaping, fountains and pathS around the stormwater pond in Block I. Finally, Area D, which is adjacent to the mixed-use area, will have several amenity areas that will supplement the needs generated in Area C. Neighborhood The retail, restaurant, office, and plaza in Block IV demonstrate the Centers applicant's attempt to create a center for the northern portion of the Town Center. The mixture of uses will extend into Blocks II through VIII. The uses in this area will also provide for the Hollymead Community's commercial needs. Thus, this area will act as both a neighborhood.and community center. Buildings and Spaces The numeric parameters set forth in the Code's tables and appendices work of ltnman Scale to create a place that has a well developed sense of human-scale. The relationship between the street and the buildings is a major focus in both the ' Code's narrative and tables. Streets are intended to be as narrow as possible. Street trees are provided. Build-to lines have been provided to bring the building close up to street. A waiver to Section 4.11.1 will allow · canopies and awnings to extend up to the property line which may be closer than six feet to a street. Finally, the architecture guidelines are generally focused on creating a building mass that frames the street while maintaining a pedestrian orientation. Relegated Parking While only slightly above the amount of required parking, the project provides almost 1,500 parking spaces. The amount of surface parking is one of the weakest aspects of Area C's proposal. Despite staff and Commission recommendations, the applicant does not feel that structured parking is an. economically viable option at this time. On the positive side, the applicant has relegated a majority of the parking either to the side or behind buildings. Where the parking is adjacent to the street, the Code calls for a combination of streetwalls and landscaping to mitigate the visual impacts.of the parking from the street. Mixture of Uses As proposed in the Application Plan, in the project's Mixed Use/Regional Service designated area (Blocks I and IX), only retail uses are proposed.. However, in the other portions of the project, the proposal calls for a mixture of uses and the minimum requirements of Table A will require the applicant to provide a mixture of uses. Mixture of Housing The applicant has proposed between 50 to 120 apartments and/or Types and townhouses. The potential affordable nature of the housing project has not Affordability been addressed by the applicant. Hollymead Town Center Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 8 Redevelopment While Area C is not a "redevelopment" situation because nothing exists on the property, the possibility for future infill is an important expectation within the Hollymead CPA. The CPA's overall FAR goal is 0.5 for the Town Center. As proposed, Area C's FAR is 0.35. However, the applicant has allowed for several future redevelopment possibilities in several areas within the development. For example, Block VI is a parking lot that is surrounded by streets. Once the economics of parking structures within the Town Center are a reality, this area is a likely candidate for infill and the density and intensity of the area can be increased. Other infill possibilities exist at the comer of Access Road B and Timberwood Boulevard and between Blocks VII and IX. Site Planning that In general, staff supports the amount of grading proposed in Area C even Respects Terrain though Area C's grading plan may not "respect" the existing terrain (e.g., the grading plan proposes lowering of the ridgeline by up to 20 feet). The County has designated this area for a high-intensity, high-quahty Town Center. Staffrecognizes that there is an inherent conflict between a dense, intense development that requires, a reasonably flat area within which to build the grid street network. Since the current proposal meets the County site design expectation, staffbelieves the trade-off between the proposed site layout and grading is justified. Clear Boundaries The proposal does not have a common boundary with the Rural Areas. with the Rural Areas Conformity with the CommUnity Facilities Plan The Community Facilities Plan proposes locating: · A police substation in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area to reduce response times to the northern urbanized portion of the County. ° A joint frre/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. Staff believes that a library branch location in Area C is not appropriate; however, a suitable library site may be located in Area A, which is the subject of another of the Hollymead Town Center rezonings. In general, the County tries to provide police substations within fire and rescue stations, so a separate facility for a police substation is not needed. Staff is concerned that the scale and intensity of this proposal, as well as the others within the Town Center, will dramatically increase the need for a fire and rescue facility and that Area C's potential fire suppression needs will be underserved. At this time, the County is discussing with the applicant ways in which the impacts on fire/rescue services can be mitigated with this rezoning. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan Except for the woods, the Open Space Plan identifies no environmental features in Area C. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 9 Critical slopes exist on the site. They comprise a relatively small area and are not associated with a perennial stream where water quality could be adversely impacted by their disturbance. Staffbelieves that regrading of slopes is appropriate if mostly 3:1 or 4:1 slopes are created and, if retaining walls are needed, they be limited to 4- 5 feet. Approval of a waiver to regrade these slopes will need to be requested and approved as part of future site plans. ANALYSIS OF THE REZONING REQUEST Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicant is 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 develo£ment of large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified planned apl~roach. 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 lvublic roads if permitted with Unlvlanned access, it is intended that multiple access to existing public roads be discouraged, and that develo2vment and access be oriented toward an internal road system having carefully planned intersections with existing public roads. ' In general, this proposal is in keeping with the intent statement. It is a large-scale commercial area with a mixture of residential uses that is being created under a unified planned approach. It will be established on a major highway within the Development Area. Finally, the project's reliance on the grid road network and its placement of parking lots entrances create an efficient transportation network that will support the remainder of the Town Center and other development in the Hollymead Development Area. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ROADS On February 11, 2003, staffpresented the Commission with a report on the Town Center proposal's traffic impacts to the external public road network (Attachment D). The essential conclusion drawn in that report was that the development of the Town Center will significantly deteriorate the existing transportation system because A) the size of impacts projected in the applicants' traffic study; B) the lack of capacity on the already stressed local roads, including Route 29, in the County's northern portion; and, C) the public sector's inability to fund the road improvements at a level necessary to support the Town Center. Staff's continues to support the conclusions drawn in the February staffreport. Area C generates approximately 28% the total trips generated by the Town Center as a whole Staff believes, however, that Area C's impacts cannot be separated from the rest of the Town Center's traffic impacts. Therefore, staff believes that Area C should be a part of any regional transportation solution for the Town Center. VDOT has recently provided the County two letters that clarify their position relative to the Town Center and more specifically Areas B and C (Attachment E and F). The first letter, dated May 30th, 2003, speaks directly to Area C (Attachment E). In this letter, VDOT recommends constructing the following improvements to support the traffic that will be entering and exiting Hollymead Town Center Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 10 the Town Center at Timberwood Boulevard (See Attachment C for a general location of the necessary transportatiOn improvements): 1. Two (2) additional lanes on Route 29, one in each direction, for 1,000 feet north and south of the existing Timberwood signal. These lanes should be provided to the outside of the existing pavement. 2. Additional mm-lanes at the Timberwood intersection. (Two left-turn lanes in the northbound direction and a right-hand turn and taper in the southbound direction). 3. Provide funding to extend Access Road C to Airport Road and provide funding for a signal at this intersection. 4. Participation by the applicant(s) in a Community Development Authority (CDA) for the purposes of funding other road improvement in and around the Route 29 Corridor. In second letter, dated June 5th (Attachment F), VDOT lists the following as the minimum set of improvements, to be built by the applicants, in order for VDOT to grant permission for a new cross-over and signal at the Holly Memorial Gardens cemetery location (Access Road A on the Attachment C) :' 5. Two (2) additional lanes on Route 29, one in each direction, for 1,000 feet north and south of the proposed cemetery crossover. These lanes should be provided to the outside of the existing pavement. 6. Reconstruction (regrading) of Route 29's southbound lane profile grade to match the northbound lane's existing profile. 7. Additional turn-lanes at the proposed cemetery crossover. (Two left-turn lanes in the northbound direction and a right-hand turn and taper in the southbound direction). Finally, the June 5th letter also provides the minimum level of road improvements in the area necessary to achieve a tolerable level of service (C or D) along Route 29 if the entire Town Center is to be Constructed. The list of improvements includes the seven items listed above as well as the following: 8. Extension of Access Road C to the south of the Town Center in order to create a direct linkage to the Hollymead Drive/Route 29 intersection. 9. Extension of Access Road A to the west of the Town Center in order to create a direct connection to either Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) or the Earlysville Road (Route 743). County Engineering and Planning Staff fully support all nine of VDOT's recommendations. At this time, the applicants for Area B and Area C have only proffered to provide an additional, continuous right-hand turn lane across their frontage in the southbound lane of Route 29 (a small proportion of #1 above) and provide the additional left-hand turn lanes reCommended by VDOT in #2 and #7 above at this time. Additionally, Area B has proffered to participate in a CDA (#4 above) while Area C is not willing to participate in a CDA at this time. As for Areas A and D, Area A has proffered to build, in conjunction with the development of Area B, a continuous right-hand turn lane across Area A's frontage and the portion of Access Road C between Access Road A and Area C. The applicant for Area D has suggested proffering either to participate in the CDA or make a one-time, per unit contribution towards transportation improvements. (See Attachment C) Hollymead Town Center Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 11 Staff is unable to recommend the extent or degree to which any individual Town Center applicant (Areas A, B, C or D) is respOnsible for ensuring that these nine improvements are in place. Staff suggests that it is the responsibility of the four applicants to propose a unified package of improvements that addresses the nine improvements recommended by County staff and VDOT. Staffbelieves it is important to successfully coordinate a regional transportation solution among all the Hollymead Town Center applicants. ,Approval of any rezoning without a coordinated solution greatly diminishes the opportunities for fair and equitable participation in improvements. 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. STORMWA TER MANAGEMENT Staff has reviewed the applicant's stormwater management plan and has determined it to be feasible from a conceptual standpoint. The applicant's proposal creates a system of on-site regional basins which either accepts run-off (from Area B) and off-site basins (within Area D) that allow for a higher density and more efficient utilization of the land within Area C. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a series of landscaped biofilters within the site that will treat and infiltrate stormwater as well as break up the surface parking lots. Staff supports and encourages the use ofbiofilters and other treatment methods closer to the pollutant source instead of relying solely on the basins for "end-of-pipe treatment" because they more effectively reduce environmental impacts to water quality. SCHOOLS Students from this development would attend Butler Baker Elementary, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Impacts to the school from the proposed 120 dwelling units, which will be either in the form oftownhouses or apartment, will be minimal. FISCAL IMPA CT A fiscal impact analysis has been performed for Area C (Attachment G). Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources No impact is expected on cultural or historic resources. Anticipated impact on nearby and surroundin{~ r~roperties Aside from the traffic impacts, staff does not believe that the impacts to adjacent properties will be significant. The commercial properties to the north of Area C will most likely benefit from the increased consumer traffic in the area. Residential uses (Block V) are proposed adjacent to the residential uses in the Deerwood subdiv/sion. Finally, the Code is designed to create a project that is sensitive to the Entrance Corridor. Public need and [ustification for the chan.qe The Holtymead Town Center represents one of the few large, consolidated areas of undeveloped land within the County.. Since there are relative few of these "greenfield" sites left, staff believes Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 12 that these types of sites should be developed in a careful, considerate manner. Staff has encouraged the applicants to develop creative proposals that more efficiently use the land and create a more urbanized form than what has been built in the past. So far, it is staffs opinion that the applicants for Areas C and D have made a serious commitment to the form envisioned in the Neighborhood Model and the Hollymead Town Center CPA Area C is not without its problems. The surface parking constitutes just under half of Area C's total area. The Mixed-Use Regional Service Area adjacent to Route 29 does not have a mixture of uses. Most importantly, the road improvements proffered to date will not mitigate the traffic impacts generated by Area C. Area C does have its benefits. First, the project meets many of the Neighborhood Model principles and goals established in the Hollymead Town Center CPA. Secondly, the property has significant by-right potential that could be built with little regard to the Neighborhood Model or the CPA's goals. Through the adoption of Area C's Application Plan and COde of Development, the County will have significant amount of control over the form of development on this property. After consideration of these factors, staff believes that there is a public need for the proposed change in use, but the traffic question impacts and fire/rescue needs must be resolved satisfactorily. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS The applicant has made two special use permit requests (SP 03-27 and SP 03-30). The applicant has agreed to defer SP 03-27, which is a request for a drive-through window associated with a use in Block I, until the site plan stage where they will be able to provide a higher degree of information. The second special use permit (SP 03-30) is a request for residential uses in a PD- MC district. In general, staff supports the second special use permit request. Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? There is no significant detrimental effect to any adjacent property. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? Providing residential use will add to the mixture of uses within the Town Center and increase the area's vibrancy. Will the use be in harmony with the propose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Residential uses are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? If the property is rezoned, the residential uses will be in harmony with the commercial uses which are also recommended within this area by the Comprehensive Plan. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? There are no additional regulations for proposed residential uses provided in Section 5.0. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? Hollymead Town Cehter ~ Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 13 There is nothing unusually hazardous or objectionable about the uses. ANALYSIS OF THE WAIVER REQUESTS The applicant has requested a waiver to Section 21.7.1-3 which require 30-foot setbacks from streets, 50-foot setbacks from an RA district, and a 20-foot buffer from RA properties. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture 0fuses within this area. Any attempt to create setbacks or buffers between uses hms counter to the intent of the Town Center. Furthermore, the adjacent properties that are currently zoned RA are in the Development Area and will most likely redevelop into a density and intensity similar to Area C. Therefore, staff supports granting waivers to Section 21.7.1-3. The applicant has also requested a waiver to Section 4.11.1 to allow covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features on buildings to project closer than 6 feet to a lot line from an abutting street along which the building will be constructed. At present, Section 4.11.1 would not allow any buildings to project closer than 6 feet from a property line which is coincident with a street. Staff supports this waiver and recommends thafthis section in 4.11.1 be waived and replaced with the following statement: "Porches, balconies, recessed doorways, planned spaces for public or commercial use' such as outdoor cafes or plazas, and handicap ramps shall be exempt from the requirement to be set back 6 feet from a property line which is coincident with a street. They shall also be exempt from the build-to line, estabhshed in the Code of Development, provided all porches, balconies, recessed doorways, planned spaces for public or commercial use such as outdoor cafes or plazas and handicap ramps are constructed behind the property line." The following definition is included in the Code of Development: "Build-to-line shall be defined as: An alignment established a certain distance, as defined in the Code of Development, from the front property line abutting a street, along which the building shall be built." SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal meets many of the Neighborhood Model Principles and the Hollymead Town Center CPA's goals. 2. The proposal provides a mixture of uses and creates a neighborhood and community center. 3. The proposal provides a system of grid streets with the appropriate commitment to creating a streetscape and relegating parking, to the extent possible behind either buildings or visual buffers. 4. The proposal ensures building massing and architecture that will create a human-scale development. 5. The ARB has provided a positive a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Board on this application. Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request: Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 14 1. The questions related to mitigating the off-site traffic impacts remain unresolved. 2. The applicant's proposal is in an area with an identified public facility need and whose use will increase the demand for public services, most particularly fire and rescue.. Although the County is in negotiation with the applicant on this item, to date there has been no proffer to offset the increased demand for services. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff believes that the applicant has met the land use and site design goals and requirements set forth in the Hollymead Town Center CPA but has not as yet appropriately mitigated impacts fi:om the development. Staff would be in a position to recommend approval of the rezoning (ZMA 01-20), the special use permit request (SP 03-30) and requested waivers to Section 21.7.1- 3 and Section 4.11.1 if these impacts were appropriately addressed. Should the Commission agree, staff offers the alternative for the Commission to forWard this application to the Board with staff's recommendation. There, the impacts noted as concerns can be addressed in a concentrated fashion with the other Hollymead Town Center applications. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 15 ZMA 02-02 I-IOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER, AREA D - APPLICANT, THE KESSLER GROUP WAIVER REQUESTS TO SECTION 21.7 AND SECTION 4.11.1 APPLICATION OVERVIEW Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, The Kessler Group, requests a rezoning of acres 24.1 acres from RA [Rural Areas] and LI [Light Industrial] to NMD [Neighborhood Model District] to allow for a residential development of between 97-370 dwelling units and potentially up to 50,000 square feet of office andretail uses. The Application Plan (Attachment H) also proposes to provide a significant proportion of the Town Center's open space in the form of a greenway, a linear park, and a couple of other smaller parks. Finally, the applicant has requested several waivers to Section 21.7.1-3 and a waiver to Section 4.11.1. As described later in this report, Section 21.7.1-3 requires buffers from RA Districts. Section 4.11.1 does not allow for awnings, eaves, canopies, and the like to extend closer than six feet to a street. To date, the applicant has provided no proffers; however, they have indicated a willingness to provide proffers to offset the impacts once they have a better understanding of the regional transportation solution that-will be accepted by the Board of Supervisors. They have also indicated a willingness to offset the impacts of their development on fire and rescue service'in the Hollymead Community. Code q£Development A Code of Development is required as part of an NMD rezoning request. The Code is a set of customized regulations (Attachment I & J). The Code supplements the Application Plan by setting forth the parameters within which Area D's development will be reviewed during the site plan stage. The Code has two parts - the Tables/Appendices and the Narrative. The tables and appendices are mostly numeric and set parameters (e.g., build-to lines, specific allowable uses, etc.) for development within each of the proposal's seven individual blocks (see Attachment K Block Exhibit). The Narrative section creates regulations that are more qualitative in nature and usually apply to the development as a whole. Finally, the parameters in Code of Development will be used by staff to determine the degree to which the applicant can vary the final development (the site plan) from the development proposed on the Application Plan. Please see scenarios 1, 2, 3 for general concept of how Area D could be developed under the Code (Attachments L, M, and N). Petition for Rezoning: The applicant requests to rezone 24.1 acres from RA [Rural Areas] and LI [Light Industrial] to NMD [Neighborhood Model District] to allow for a mixed -use development. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcels 46 and 41D, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North at 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/Community Service and Urban Density uses. P~.offers At this time, the applicant has not provided a written set of proffers. The applicant has indicated, however, a willingness to participate in transportation improvements to mitigate the impacts of their development. They have also indicated a willingness to work with the county to resolve the issues related to provision of fire/rescue facilities in the Hollymead Community. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 16 Character of the Area: Area D is surrounded by Areas C and B to the south and east. To the north, Area D is bounded by Area E. Area E is jointly owned by the Kessler Group and the Virginia Land Company. Area E is already Zoned CO [Commercial Officel and is the only portion of the Hollymead Town Center that is not included in any of the current rezordng requests. Finally, the partially developed Deerwood Subdivision forms the western boundary of the project (See the vicinity map- Attachment A). The property is partially wooded and partially cleared. It slopes gently down to a small, intermittent stream from the major north-south ridge that dominates the Town Center. Planning and Zoninq History: The property has no recent zoning history. By-right Use of the Properties: Parcel 32-46 is 24 acres and is zoned RA. Staff estimates the parcel's by-right potential t° be five (5) single family dwelling units. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant intends primarily to provide urban density residential uses (apartments and/or townhomes). These dwelling units are intended to support and complement the remainder of the Hollymead, Town Center. The applicant believes that their design meets the goals set forth in the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03) as well as the Land Use Designations set forth in the Daggett and Grigg Plan (Attachment B). Recommendation: Staff believes that the applicant has met the land use and site design goals and requirements set forth in the Hollymead Town Center CPA but, has not as yet appropriatelY mitigated impacts from the development nor provided for certain necessary public facilities. Staffwould be in a position to recommend approval of the rezoning (ZMA 02-02) and the requested waivers to Section 21.7,1-3 and Section 4.11.1 if these impacts were mitigated. First, the applicant should nfitigate Area D's external traffic impacts to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors in coordination with the other Hollymead Town Center rezoning applications. Second, commitments should be made to help mitigate the impacts of the development on the fire and rescue provision in accordance with the County's Community Facilities Plan for the Hollymead community. STAFF ANALYSIS CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE ])LAN: This section assesses the ability of ZMA 02-02 to meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, the rezoning request is assessed against the following components of the Comprehensive Plan: the Land Use Plan designations, any general recommendations pertaining to the Hollymead Community, the specific recommendation from the Hollymead Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 17 Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 98-03), the Neighborhood Model, the Community Facilities Plan, the Open Space Plan, and the Natural Resources section. Conformity with the Land Use Plan The Application Plan and Code of Development propose a combination of single-family homes, townhouses, and aparlxnents. The Plan and the Code also allows for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial uses in Block VI depending on market conditions. This distribution of uses is consistent with the land uses set out in the Hollymead CPA's Master Plan, a.k.a, the Daggett and Grigg Plan (Attachment B) because Urban Density Residential and Mixed Use/Community Service land uses are designated for this portion of the Town Center. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the Hollymead Communit¥ The following statements reflect 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 selected 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 should 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." Area D constitutes the residential district portion of the Town Center. Staff believes that the close proximity of the commercial uses in Areas A and C will achieve a mixed-use community and encourage alternative modes of transit. · :'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." All of Area D's roads are lined on both sides with sidewalks as proposed. Area D also provides road and sidewalk linkages to Areas A and C as well as the Deerwood Subdivision to the west. Finally, the proposal.provides a portion of the greenway that will follow Powell Creek through Area A and eventually under Route 29. This greenway trail will create a pedestrian linkage between the Town Center and the Forest Lakes North/Hollymead subdivisions. "Developmentplans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway." Area D is not visible from the Entrance Corridor and will not be regulated by the Architectural Review Board. Conformity with the Hollymead lown 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 A). The CPA provides a series of specific recommendations and references a master plan developed by the Daggett and Grigg Architecture firm (Attachment B). The CPA specific recommendations ranged from descriptions of uses and Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 18 densities witkin 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 Area D meets the goals of the CPA is assessed in other parts of this report and w/Il not be repeated in this section. However, the following specific criteria from the CPA that have not been addressed directly w/thin this report will be covered in this section. These criteria are in italics below: Roof designs should mitigate the visual impact of larger scale structures and associated buildings, especially considering the general location of this area along a ridgeline. · Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities should be incorporated building design so they are not visible. · Metal buildings should not bepermitted. The applicant has worked to the satisfaction of staff to provide fagade/building elevation information and mitigation commitments relative to the location of loading docks, dumpsters, etc in the Code (See the Code Narrative (Attachment I) section on Building and Lot Characteristics - - Table D, and Attachments L, M, and N.) · Large parking areas should be divided into smaller comlvonents using travel ways and median breaks with and other landscaping material used to minimize visual impacts and heat generated by large areas of Due to its residential nature, the proposal does not envision large sm'face parking lots. Where parking lots are provided, the applicant has relegated them from the street with buildings. If the plan ultimately proposes parking lots adjacent to the greenway trail, the applicant is obligated to provide landscaping to soften the transition (but not "screen" the parking lots) between the parking and trail area. · Open space, recreation areas andpublic spaces shall beprovided to servepatrons, employees, and residents. Development of public open space/features such as a public square, traffic circles, and "pocket park(s) "should be provided throughout the Town Center area. The application proposes to provide a significant proportion of the Town Center's open space in the form of a greenway, a linear park, a greenway park, a pocket park and an amenity around the stormwater management facility in Block IV (see the Application Plan for the location of these amenities). The Code of Development outlines the feature that will be provided in each of these amenity areas. The greenway trail will be a constructed 10-foot asphalt trail. The entire greenway trail area in Block I and III will be dedicated to the County and managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. The linear park will be 80-100 feet wide and contain formalized landscaped area, seating areas, and sidewalks. It is intended to be a more formalized park area for Town Center residents as well as a pedestrian connection between the greenway trail and the Main Street area in Area A. The greenway park in Block IH and the adjacent pocket park in Block VI will provided a tot lot, ½ basketball courts or similar activity areas. The stormwater facility will either be a pond or wetland area that will be designed to maximize its potential to be an amenity. The applicant is obligated to provide walking trails and landscaping around the facility, which is at the terminus of the greenway trail, so that the facility is an attractive area. (See the Code Narrative (Attachment I) section on Amenities and Table C). · Space shall be made available for a recycling center (not counted against square footage limits). Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 19 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, use of natural lighting within buildings, and energy efficiency. Due to the amount and scale of the grading proposed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to retain any of the mature trees within the area proposed for development. However, the applicant has proposed a 100-foot buffer from the stream behind Block I and a 50-foot buffer from the stream behind Block III for a greenway trail. Trees will be protected in this buffer area to the maximum extent possible in this area. The applicant has stated in the Code's narrative that they will select drought-tolerant species and apply techniques that reduce their water usage. The applicant has not indicated whether their buildings will implement the principles of sustainable design. Conformity with the Neighborhood Model Below staff assesses Area D's ability to meet the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. Pedestrian Orientation Sidewalks are provided throughout the Project and they are wider in the mixed-use areas. Buildings and street trees line most of the streets. Shopping, employment areas, and open space amenities are within close walking distance. Neighborhood Friendly The project is based on a grid network of streets and drive aisles. The Streets and Paths . streets are intended to be as narrow as possible and create a sense of spatial enclosure through the provision of street trees and build-to lines. Interconnected Streets The grid network will provide for several connections to Areas A and C as and Transportation well as to adjoining properties in the Deerwood Subdivision (Attachment Networks C). One important interconnection that is not provided as part of Area C to . the Hollymead Town Center is still needed. Access Road C will stop at Area C's property line instead of extending all the way to Airport Road. Building this connection may require cooperation among all applicants for the Hollymead Town Center rezonings. Parks and Open Space The application proposes to provided a significant proportion of the Town Center's open space in the form of a greenway, a linear park, a greenway park, a pocket park and an amenity around the stormwater management facility in Block IV Neighborhood Centers While Area D may or may not ultimately build any commercial uses, its future residents will be within easy walking distance of the retail, restaurant, and offices use in the adjacent portions of Town .Center. Buildings and Spaces of The numeric parameters set forth in the Code's tables and appendices work Human Scale to create a place that has a well developed sense of human-scale. The relationship between the street and the buildings is a major focus in both the Code's narrative and tables. Streets are intended to be as narrow as Hollymead Town Center- Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 20 possible. Street trees are provided. Build-to lines have been provided to -- bring the building close up to street. Finally, the architecture guidelines are generally focused on creating a building mass that flames the street while maintaining a pedestrian orientation. Relegated Parking The Application Plan shows a majority of the parking tucked behind the buildings with only the on-street parking visible from the majority of the streets. The applicant is obligated to provide landscaping between the greenway trail and any "large" parking area that may be adjacent to the trail. Mixture of Uses As proposed, Block VI carl have either dwelling units or, 50,000 square feet of commercial uses or some combination thereof. Even if Area D builds the maximum amount of dwelling units :and provided no commercial uses, staff believes that Area D will still have a "mixture of use" due to the cloSe proximity of the commercial uses in Areas A,B, and C. Mixture of Housing The applicant has proposed apartments, townhouses, and studios~ In one Types and Affordability potential Scenario in Blocks V and VI, which the applicant has proposed but is not obligated to build, a three-story townhouse could be structured so .that a family would park in the lots to the rear of the building and live in the upper two floors. The family could then either choose to use the lowest floor or rent it out as a stuclio apartment to a person who would park on Road F below (see Scenario #1 for conceptual drawing). This arrangement would allow a family with a modest income to buy a townhouse and supplement their mortgage payments with rent from the studio apartment. Redevelopment While Area D is not a "redevelopment" situation because ~othing exists on the property, the possibility for future infill is an important expectation within the Hollymead CPA. The CPA's overall FAR goal is 0.5 for the Town Center. Area D's proposed FAR (excluding open space) is not known at this time. Site Planning that In general, staff supports the mount grading proposed in Area D because it Respects Terrain works with the existing grade. For example, the roads linking Access Road D to Access Road F are proposed at the maximum grade allowed by the ordinance, 10%. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to use the building as retaining walls in Blocks V and VI as a means of working down the grade. Clear Boundaries with The proposal does not have a common boundary with the Rural Areas. the Rural Areas Conformity with the Community Facilities Plan The Community Facilities Plan proposes locating: · A police substation in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area to reduce response times to the northern urbanized portion of the County. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 21 · 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. Staffbelieves that a library branch location in Area D is not appropriate; however, a suitable library site may be located in Area A, which is the subject of another of the Hollymead Town Center rezonings. In general, the County tries to provide police substations within fire and rescue stations, so a separate facility for a police substation is not needed. Staff is concerned that the scale and intensity of this proposal, as well as the others within the Town Center, will dramatically increase the need for a fire and rescue facility and that Area D's potential fire suppression needs will be underserved. At this time, the County is discussing with the applicant ways in which the impacts on fire/rescue services can be mitigated with this rezoning. Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan Except for the woods, the Open Space Plan identifies no environmental features in Area D. The Water Resources Manager has designated that the stream that forms the proposal's western boundary as intermittent and the stream ranked relatively low in the recently completed Stream Assessment Survey. Therefore, the applicant is not required to maintain a buffer off of the stream. The Hollymead CPA, however, does recommend a buffer area along this stream for the purpose of a greenway trail. The applicant has agreed to provide a buffer for the greenway trail. There are no critical slopes on the property. ANALYSIS OF THE R~ZONING REQUEST Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The applicant is requesting a rezoning to the new Neighborhood Model District. The intent statement in Section 20A of the Zoning Ordinance for NMD district is as follows: "The purpose of the Neighborhood Model district (hereinafter referred to as the "NMD ") is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the county's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The county's Neighborhood Model was adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, and is hereinafter referred to as the "Neighborhood Model." The regulations in section 20A encourage a development form and character that is different from conventional suburban development by providing the following characteristics: Pedestrian orientation; Neighborhood friendly streets and paths; Interconnected streets and transportation networks; Parks and open space as amenities; Neighborhood centers; Buildings and spaces of human scale; Relegated parking; Mixture of uses and use types; Mixture of housing types and affordability; Redevelopment; Site planning that respects terrain; and Clear boundaries with the rural areas. Hollyrnead Town Center- Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 22 The NMD is intended to provide for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The particular uses permitted within a particular district, as welt as the character, form and density of the development, shall be derived from the comprehensive plan, including the land use plan for the applicable development area, the master plan for the applicable development area, and the Neighborhood Model. Density shall be achieved with careful attention to design, as articulated in the Neighborhood Model. These regulations are intended to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the general development plan and the code of development." In general, this proposal is in keeping with the intent statement. The proposal meets most of the Neighborhood Model Principles. Its adjacency to a large-scale commercial area and its various residential uses makes it a "mixed-use" proposal. Finally, it meets most of the Hollymead Town Center CPA's goals. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ROADS On February 11, 2003, staff presented the Commission with a report on the Town Center proposal's traffic impacts to the external public road network (Attachment D). The essential conclusion drawn in that report was that the development of the Town Center will significantly deteriorate the existing transportation system because: A) the size of impacts projected in the applicants' traffic study; B) thc lack of capacity on the already stressed local roads, including Route 29, in thc County's northern portion; and, C) the public sector's inabiliw to fired the road improvements at a level necessary to support the Town Center. Stafgs continues to support thc conclusions drawn in the February staff report. Staff recognizes that Area D has the least impact on traffic within the Hollymead Town Center (roughly 4 to5 % of the total trips generated by the Town Center as a whole). Staff believes, however, that Area D's impacts cannot be separated from the rest of the Town Center's traffic impacts. Therefore, staff thinks that Area D should be a part of and make a proportionate contribution towards any regional transportation solution for the Town Center. VDOT has recently provided the County two letters that clarify their position relative to the Town Center and more specifically Areas B and C (Attachment E and F). The fa'st letter, dated May 30th, 2003, speaks directly to Area D (Attachment E). In this letter, VDOT recommends constructing the following improvements to support the traffic that will be entering and exiting the Town Center at Timberwood Boulevard (See Attachment C for a depiction of the recommended transportation improvements): 1. Two (2) additional lanes on Route 29, otie in each direction, for 1,000 feet north and south of the existing Timberwood signal. These lanes should be provided to the outside of the existing pavement. 2. Additional turn-lanes at the Timberwood intersection. (Two left-turn lanes in the northbound direction and a right-hand turn and taper in the southbound direction). 3. Provide funding to extend Access Road C to Airport Road and provide funding for a signal at this intersection. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 23 4. Participation by the applicant(s) in a Community Development Authority (CDA) for the purposes of funding other road improvement in and around the Route 29 Corridor. In second letter, dated June 5th (Attachment F), VDOT lists the following as the minimum set of improvements, to be built by the applicants, in order for VDOT to grant permission for a new cross-over and signal at the Holly Memorial Gardens cemetery location (Access Road A on the Attachment C): 5. Two (2) additional lanes on Route 29, one in each direction, for 1,000 feet north and south of the proposed cemetery crossover. These lanes should be provided to the outside of the existing pavement. 6. Reconstruction (regrading) of Route 29's southbound lane profile grade to match the northbound lane's existing profile. 7. Additional turn-lanes at the proposed cemetery crossover. (Two left-tm lanes in the northbound direction and a right-hand mm and taper in the southbound direction). Finally, the June 5th letter also provides the minimum level of road improvements in the area necessary to achieve a tolerable level of service (C or D) along Route 29 if the entire Town Center is to be constructed. The list of improvements includes the seven items listed above as well as the follOwing: 8. Extension of Access Road C to the south of the Town Center in order to create a direct linkage to the Hollymead Drive/Route 29 intersection. 9. Extension of Access Road Ato the west of the Town Center in orderto create a direct cormectiOn to either Dickerson Road (Rt. 606) or the EarlySville Road (Rome 743). County Staff fullY support the nine recommendations made by VDOT. It should be noted that Area B's and Area C's applicants have proffered to provide an additional, continuous right-hand turn lane across their frontage in the southbound lane of Route 29 (a small proportion of#1 above) and provide the additional left-hand turn lanes recommended by VDOT in #2 and #7 above at this time. Additionally, Area B has proffered to participate in a CDA (#4) while Area C is not willing to Participate in a CDA at this time. As for Areas A and D, Area A has proffered to build, in conjunction with the development of Area B, a continuous -hand turn lane across Area A's frontage and the portion of Access Road C between Access Road A and Area D, Area D has suggested proffering either to participate in the CDA or make a one-time, per unit contribution towards transportation improvements. Staff is unable to recommend to extent or degree to which any individual Town Center applicant (Areas A, B, C or D) is responsible for ensuring that these nine improvements are in place. Staff suggests that it is the responsibility of the four applicants to propose a unified package of improvements that addresses the nine improvements recommended by County staff and VDOT. Staff believes it is important to successfully coordinate a regional transportation solution among all the Hollymead Town Center applicants. Approval of any rezoning without a coordinated solution greatly diminishes the opportunities for fair and equitable participation in improvements. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 24 ~TA TER 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 capaciti~.s are shared with the City of Charlottesville and the City has equal access to the excess capacity in the systems. STORMI, VA TER MANAGEMENT Staffhas reviewed the applicant's proposal and has determined it to be £easible £rom a conceptual standpoint. SCHOOLS Students from this development would attend Butler Baker Elementary, Sutherland Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Impacts to the school from the proposed 300 dwelling unit will be minimal because the number of students generated from either townhouse or an apartment development is relatively small. FISCAL IMPA CT A fiscal impact analysis has been performed for Area D (Attachment O). Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources No impact is expected on cultural or historic resources. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties Aside from the traffic impacts, staff does not believe that the impacts to adjacent properties will be significant. At a recent worksession, the Commission determined that the residential uses proposed in this application are an appropriate adjoining use to the partially developed Deerwood Subdivision to the west. The remainder of the Town Center forms the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries. Staff and the applicants have worked closely to integrate Area D with the other portions of the Town Center. Therefore, negative impacts are not anticipated to these areas. Public need and justification for the chanqe The Hollymead Town Center represents one of the few large, consolidated areas of undeveloped land within the County's Development Area. Since there are relative few of these "greenfield" sites left, staffbelieves that these types of sites should be developed in a careful, considerate manner. Staffhas encouraged the applicants to develop creative proposals that more efficiently use the land and create a more urbanized form than what has been built in the past. So far, it is staff's opinion that only the applicants for Areas C and D have made a serious commitment to the form envisioned in the Neighborhood Model and the Hollymead Town Center CPA. Area D's principal benefits are: 1) its consistency with the goals established in the Hollymead Town Center CPA; 2) its ability to meet most of the Neighborhood Model Principles; and, 3) the amount of open space that it provides. Area D's principal detractions are: 1) the overall public road infrastructure is not capable as it exists to support the development proposed for the Town Center, and 2) Area D's development further exacerbates the lack of a fire/rescue station in the Hollymead Community. Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 25 After consideration of these factors, staffbelieves that there is a public need for the proposed change in use, but the traffic question impacts and fire/rescue needs must be resolved satisfactorily ANALYSIS OF TI-IE WAIVER REQUESTS The applicant has requested a waiver to Section 21.7.1-3 which require 30-foot setbacks from streets, 50-foot setbacks from an RA district, and a 20-foot buffer from. RA properties. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a mixture of uses within this area. Any attempt to create setbacks or buffers between uses runs counter to the intent of the Town Center. Furthermore, the adjacent properties that are currently zoned RA are in the Development Area and will most likely redevelop into a density and intensity similar to Area C. Therefore, staff supports granting waivers to Section 21.7.1-3. The applicant has also requested a waiver to Section 4.11.1 to allow covered porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and like architectural features on buildings to project closer than 6 feet to a lot line from an abutting street along which the building will be constructed. At present, Section 4.11.1 would not allow any buildings to project closer than 6 feet from a property line which is coincident with a street. Staff supports this waiver and recommends that this section in 4.11:1 be waived and replaced with the following statement: "Porches, balconies, recessed doorways, planned spaces for public or commercial use such as outdoor cafes or plazas, and handicap rampS shall be exempt from the requirement to be set back 6 feet from a property fine which is coincident with a street. They shall also be exempt from the build-to line, established in the Code of Development, provided all porches, balconies, recessed doorways, planned spaces for public or commercial use such as outdoor cafes or plazas and handicap ramps are constructed behind the property fine." The applicant has asked that the following definition be included with his Code of Development: "Build-to-line shall be defmed as: An alignment established a certain distance, as defined in the Code of Development, from the front property line abutting a street, along which the building shall be built." Staff recommends that the Code of Development be amended to include this definition prior to the Board of Supervisor's pUblic hearing. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal meets most of the Neighborhood Model Principles and the Hollymead Town Center CPA's goals. 2. The proposal provides a significant amount of open space. 3. The proposal provides a grid system of streets with an appropriate commitment to creating a streetscape and relegating parking. 4. The proposal ensures building massing and architecture that will create a human-scale development. Hollymead Town Center Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 26 Staff has identified the following factors, wh/ch are unfavorable to this request: 1. The questions related to mitigating the off-site traffic impacts remain unresolved. 2. The applicant's proposal is in an area with an identified public facility need and whose use will increase the demand for public services, most particularly fire and rescue. Although the County is in negotiation with the applicant on this item, to date there has been no proffer to offset the increased demand for services. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff believes that the applicant has met the land use and site design goals and requirements set forth in the Hollymead Town Center CPA but has not as yet appropriately mitigated impacts from the development. Staff would be in a position to recommend approval of the rezoning (ZMA 02-02) and the requested waivers to Section 21.7.1-3 and Section 4.11.1 if these impacts were appropriately addressed. Should the Commission agree, staff offers the alternative for the Commission to forward this application to the Board with staff's recommendation. There, the impacts noted as concerns can be addressed in a concentrated fashion with the other Hotlymead Town Center applications. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. The Daggett and Grigg Plan from CPA 98-03 C. Future Roads Proposed by the Applicant or Recommended by Staff D. February 11, 2003 StaffReport on Hollymead Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis E. VDOT's Recommendations for Area C (May 30, 2003) F. VDOT's Recommendations for Area B (June 5, 2003) G. Fiscal Analysis for ZMA 01-20 H. ZMA 02-02 Application Plan (Area D) I. Area D's Code of Development Narrative J. Area D's Code of Development Tables and Appendices K. Area D's Code of Development Block Exhibit L. Area D -Conceptual Development Scheme # 1 M. Area D -Conceptual Development Scheme # 2 N. Area D -Conceptual Development Scheme # 3 O. Fiscal Analysis for ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Center- Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 27 Index Organization of Staff Report: ............................................................................................................... 1 ZMA 01-20 Hollymead Town Center, Area C- Applicant, The Virginia Land Co. SP 03-30 Residential Uses in a PD-MC District, Area C Waiver Requests to Section 21. 7 and 4.11.1 ..... 1 Application Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 Applicant's Proposal: .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Petition for Rezoning: ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Petition for the Special Use Permit ..................................................................................................................... 3 Character of the Area: ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Planning and Zoning History: ............................................................................................................................. 3 By-right Use of the Properties: ............................................................................................................................ 3 Applicant's Justification for the Request: ........................................................................................................... 3 Recommendation: ....... ~ ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: ......................................................................................... 4 Conformity with the Land Use Plan .................................................................................................................... 4 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recOmmendations for the Hollymead Community ........................ 4 Conformity with the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensix~e Plan Amendment ............................................. 5 Conformity with the Neighborhood Model ......................................................................................................... 7 Conformity with the Community Facilities Plan ................................................................................................. 9 Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan ........................................................................... 9 Analysis of the Rezoning Request ....................................................................................................... 10 Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district ................... 10 Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ......................................................................................... 10 Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources ....................................................................................... 12 Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties ................................................................................ 12 Public need and justification for the change ...................................................................................................... 12 Analysis of the Special Use Permit Applications ............................... ; ............................................... 13 Analysis of the Waiver Requests ......................................................................................................... 14 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Recommended Action .......................................................................................................................... 15 ZMA 02-02 Hollymead Town Center, Area D - Applicant, The Kessler Group Waiver Requests to Section 21.7 and 4.11.1 ............................................................................................ 16 Application Overview .......................................................................................................................... 16 Applicant's Proposal: ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Petition for Rezoning: ...... : ................................................................................................................................ 16 Character of the Area: ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning and Zoning History:'. .......................................................................................................................... 17 By-right Use of the Properties: .......................................................................................................................... 17 Applicant's Justification for the Request: ......................................................................................................... 17 Recommendation: .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: ....................................................................................... 17 Conformity with the Land Use Plan .................................................................................................................. 18 Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations for the Hollymead Communit¢- ...................... 18 Conformity with the Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment ........................................... 18 Conformity with the Neighborhood Model ....................................................................................................... 20 Conformity with the Community Facilities Plan ............................................................................................... 21 Conformity with the Open Space and Natural Resources Plan ......................................................................... 22 HolIymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Report for Areas C and D 28 Analysis of the Rezoning Request ....................................................................................................... 22 Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zon/ng district ................... 22 Anticipated impact on public facilities and services ......................................................................................... 23 Anticipated impact on cultural and historic resources ....................................................................................... 25 Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties ................................................................................ 25 Public need and justification for the change ...................................................................................................... 25 Analysis of the Waiver Requests ......................................................................................................... 26 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Recommended Action .......................................................................................................................... 27 Attachments .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Hollymead Town Center - Public Hearing -- Staff Rejoort for Areas C and D 29 Forest Springs MHP Attachment A ~' ~'ZMA 01, A~¢a _A_Fea North \ ...\Hollymead\hollymead.rdl 06/11/2003 02:23:12 PM Vicinity Map ~'~P~ %% CPA Boundary ZMA Areas I-'LAN '3 PRELIMINARy SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT C ~Ymead Dr Future Roads Proposed by Applicant Recommended by Staff 1 inch equals 17000 feet ATTACHMENT,D STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION DATE: MICHAEL BARNES FEBRUARY 11, 2003 ZMA 01-18 ZMA 01.19 ZMA 01-20 ZMA 02-02 SP 01-63 SP 01-64 Hollymead Town Center, Area A - Applicant, United Land Corp. Hollymead Town Center, Area B - Hollymead Town Center, Area C - Hollymead Town Center, Area D - Drive-In A, Area B Drive-In B, Area B Applicant, Dierman Reality/Regency Centers Applicant, The Virginia Land Company Applicant, The Kessler Group Purpose of the Worksession The Planning Commission has held four worksessions on the Hollymead Town Center. These worksessions focused on site design and the master plan layout. This worksession will focus on the traffic impacts to existing public roads and the potential mitigation options for those impacts. The Hollymead Town Center Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) recommends a significant mount of additional through-lanes, taming lanes and new traffic signals in order to accommodate the proposed development. Staff would like the Commission to review the proposed improvements to determine whether they are in keeping with the County's long-term goals. Secondly, staff would like the Commission to review several approaches for funding the proposed improvement and/or reducing the traffic generated by the Town Center. Discussion In its current state, Route 29 between the North and South Fork of the Rivanna River experiences heavily traffic demands and low Level of Service~ (LOS) during the morning and evening peak hours. During the evening peak, the Airport Road intersection has a LOS F (Attachment A-4). In 2001, in front the Hollymead Town Center, Route 29 experienced an annual average of 43,000 trips per day. The TIA projects the Hollymead Town Center to add an additional 28,025 average daily trips (ADT) in 2005 (Phase I) and 39,330 ADT in 2008 (Phase II, which is full buildout) (Attachment C-4). Route 29 also experiences a relatively high number of accidents (Attachment B-4). The high accident rare may be related to the hilly nature of this stretch of Route 29, which does not meet current vertical curvature standards. The TIA analyzed six elements: 1. The existing conditions for the public road networks within the area effected by the proposal. (Defined as any intersection within five miles that experiences an increase of traffic by more than 15% because of trips related to the project.) 2. The projected traffic impacts from future growth that isnot related to the Town Center (Background Traffic). The VDOT comment letter provides a glossary of traffic study related terms. Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications - TIA review 33 ATTACHMENT D 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 blue and yellow on Attachment F-4) 4. The projected traffic impact of the Town Centerat 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 Town Center road network ("Phase III"?. 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"?. 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 II). 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 the 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 impacf 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 29 from 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 1 l-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 Road3; · 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 existing 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 future 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. Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications - TIA review 234 ATTACHMENT D particular array o fuses proposed for the Hollymead Town Center and change in the current traffic distribution patterns resulting from this proposal. At this time, the Hollymead Town Center developers have only proposed to construct the roads internal to the Town Center and a series of turn lanes on Route 29 (See Attachment E-4 for list contributions or see the blue on Attachment F-4). These improvements are similar to the improvements that VDOT and the County would require as part of a site plan for a by-right development. Staff Analysis VDOT, County Engineering and County Transportation Planning have reviewed the TIA. Their letters are appended to this report (Attachments G-4, H-4, and 1-4). The general consensus amongst the reviewers is: 1. The improvements that the applicant has proposed (Attachment E-4 or blue on Attachment F~4) are inadequate to support the traffic generated by either Phase I or Phase II of the TIA; 2. At this time, neither the County nor VDOT have plans or funding to construct a majority of the recommended improvements; 3. Even with all of the proposed improvements, Route 29's intersections with Rio Road and Airport Road will have'a LOS F and LOS E, respectively; and, 4. Rural roads (Earlysville Road, Proffit Road, and Route 20) will be heavily impacted by this proposal. Decisions for the Commission There are two principle concerns raised by the study. · Are the recommend improvements in a form desired by our community? In a report to the Commission last December, staff recommended limiting Route 29 between the North and South Forks of the Rivarma to six through lane and creating a system of parallel road to manage the excess demand (Attachment J-4). Staff still supports the recommendations in that report. Please note that the Hollymead TIA did not consider the possibility of an additional north- south parallel road (e.g. Berkmar Extended or a western bypass of the site) because the possibility of such a facility is not contemplated in either the Comprehensive Plan or the Six- year Primary or Secondary Road Plan. Therefore, the developers only (non-transit) option to expand capacity is to propose widening Route 29. Currently, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (CHART), which is a sub-committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), is studying various parallel road facilities, widening possibilities on Route 29, and other multimodal solutions that would support the County's Land Use Plan for the Hollymead Community (Attachment 1-4). To this effect, the CHART Advisory Committee's final analysis may recommend transportation solutions which support staff's desire not to expand Route 29 to more than six through-lanes. blollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications TIA review 35 ATTACHMENT D A question for the Commissioners is how to coordinate the timing between these four rezoning requests and the recommendations that may come :out of the CHART Advisory Committee this summer. How do the improvements get funded? The next question for the Commission is - if the nature of the improvements is agreed upon, how will they be funded? There are essentially six ways of responding to this question. 1. The State and/or the County provide the funds. VDOT has estimated the 8-1aneing Route 29 from the South Fork to the North Fork of the Rivanna could cost $100 million dollars. This estimate does not include the other proposed improvements. With the long list of other transportation improvements already in the Six-year Primary or Secondary Plan and the State's current funding crisis, the ability for the public sector to supply funding in the near-term is severely limited. The possibilities of issuing bonds or raising revenues by other means have not been assessed at this time. However, they appear to be one of the few near-term options available to the public to fund the improvements required to support the Town Center as currently proposed. 2. Delay the traffic impacts. A phasing scheme that would severely restrict the build-out rate for the Town Center (and other development proposals in the Hollymead Community) is one means of prolonging capacity. At this point, a phasing plan based on traffic has not been discussed. 3. Rezone only a portion of the Town Center. While a specific traffic impact analysis of individual rezoning proposals has not been performed, certain uses generate a higher number of trips (Attachment C-4), while other uses generate a higher number of trips during the peak hour. Therefore, the County could select the rezonings which best meet the land use goals of the Hollymead CPA and create the least amount of traffic impact until funding for the entire package of improvements can be schedule. 4. Readjust the distribution of uses. Retail uses generate more trips than residential or Office uses. Additionally, the regional scale of the non-residential uses attracts trips from the larger population centers to the south, southeast and west. One option is to reduce the retail square footage. The effect would be to change a portion of the Town Center's focus from a regional scale shopping center to a commercial center targeting services to the Hollymead Community. 5. The Development Community provides the funds. It is conceivable that the developers' in this portion of the Development Area (i.e. the North Pointe and Hollymead Town Center applicants) would fired some of these proposed improvement as a means of advancing the timetable for the public sector's road infrastructure implementation. However, the members of the Owners Group have signaled that they cannot afford to fund all of the improvement by themselves. 6. Improve the transportation infi:astmcture afterwards. Historically, transportation infrastructure has been upgraded after the demand and congestion has increased to the point that it is required. This approach is not desirable because it is more costly, difficult, and disruptive to construct a road and acquire right-of-way when the properties adjacent to it have already been developed. Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications- TIA review 4 ATTACHMENT D. While the ultimate solution will most likely be some combination of these six approaches, staff cannot support full build-out of Phase I without a transportation solution in place. Staff believes the "improve the transportation infrastructure afterwards" would be the worst approach to take. Phase I's 28,025 external trips will overwhelm Route 29 and the other Rural Area roads that lead to the site. Furthermore, because neither the County nor the State have the funds to make these improvements at this time, the traffic resulting from this project could congestion Route 29 for years. In the final analysis, staffbelieves that the project will need to be either phased, the mixture of uses altered, or the applicants will have to fund a significant portion of the infrastructure costs if all four of these rezoning are to be approved as cun-ently proposed. Attachments A-4 B-4 C-4 D-4 E-4 F-4 G-4 H-4 1-4 J-4 Comparison of LOS for Selected Signaled Intersections Chart of Route 29 Accident Reports Trip Generation Analysis for Phase I and Phase II TIA Conclusions List of Developer Improvements Recommended Road Improvements (Attachment in color) VDOT Comments on TIA County Engineering Comments on TIA County Transportation Planner's Comments on TIA November 19th Regional Transportation Staff Report Hollymead Town Center Rezoning Applications- TIA review 37 ATTACHMENT D Decisions Chart for Commission's discussions In an attempt to focus discussions, staff has provided the following flow chart. I.Are the recommended ~mprovements in an acceptable form? IDoes the Public Sector have the necessary infrastructure improvements funded in the Six-year r~lan? Will the developers prOvide funding transportation improvement~? IDeveloper builds the square footage which is commiserate to the amount of improvements made by the private and/or public sectors outcome from the CHART Committee VDOT/County provides the transportation infrastructure  County approves the ZMAs and hopes to pay for the ]infrastructure later. / A / County approves only those ----.---~,T~'"~ ,~ ZMAs that can be ---------~'~,,2 "accommodated by the existing '~ ~k~ infrastructure. \ ~ [The Hollymead Town Center is ~':~lrevised to reduce the amount of ~ ]retail sc~uare footaae ~kx_I County approves all 4 ZMAs, ~l[but phases the development HoIlymead Town Center Rezoning Applications - TIA rewew 6 35 Philip A. Schucet COMMISSIONER May 30, 2003 COMMONWEAL TH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911 ATTACHMENT E JAMES L, BRYAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Mr. Michael Bm'nes Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Hollymead Town Center Area C Proffers Dear Mr. Barnes, The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the proffers submitted for the Hollymead Town Center, Area C (ZMA 01-20). The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Ramey Kemp and Associates/' for the entire Hollymead Town Center did not consider each ZMA application individually, nor did il/; evaluate the level of service that would be attained if Area C were approved with the proffers dated :/ May 12, 2003. / The traffic study does provide an assessment of conditions without any development of the Hollymead Town Center (the back~ound conditions). According to Ramey Kemp and Associates, the worst "background" levels of service at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard, in 2005 and 2008, will be C and D respectively. The traffic study also evaluates the conditions with the approval of the entire Town Center, including improvements similar to the currently proffered improvements fi:om both Area C and AreaB. If all the ZMA applications are approved with the current proffers, the level of service is predicted to reach F by the year 2005 at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. If Area C were to be approved in the absence of Areas A and B, the traffic impacts of Area C on US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard would need to be mitigated. Although the traffic study did not consider Area C as a stand-alone proposal, our professional opinion is that the following improvements are necessary to maintain the background levels of service at Timberwood Boulevard: Two additional through lanes on US 29, one in each direction, from 1000' South of Timberwood Boulevard to Airport Road. Sufficient funds to construct an extension of the Access Road C to Airport Road with a sig-nal at this intersection. Dual left turn lanes on 29 NB and a single rig~ht turn lane on 29 SB, at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard. Dual left and dual fight turn lanes on Timberwood Boulevard EB, at the intersection of US 29 and Timberwood Boulevard ........ :- -. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21sT CENTURY Hollymead Town Center Area C Proffer Response Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT E Participation in a CDA for the purpose of funding regional transportation infrastructure improvements that may be identified through afuture Hollymead Community Master Plan process. Residency staff believes that the conceptual design of Timberwood Boulevard and Ridge Road, including the roundabouts, will have adequate capacity. The actual design of these facilities should be evaluated in the context of a site plan review. If there are any questions or concerns, please advise. Sincerely, Matthew C. Grimes, EIT Transportation Planning Engineer cc via email Juandiego Wade Glenn Brooks 5/2003 13:21 FAX 804+979+~759 VDOT CVILLE ATTACHMENT F, NNVE] VIAOHOVM lrP0b"~L ~SZ 'ON 'J. OOV 3-1EIVIai3EFlV ::!O AJ. NrlOO :!O AI(]~]EIO EI1-LL A~INO J. ISOd3Q EIO:::! June 5, 2003 Mr. Bob Tucker County Executive 401 Mclutire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 COMMONWEALTH of V/ROINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 701 VOOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 2291 $ JAMES L BRYAN ' RESE}ENT F-NGINEER Subject: Hollymead Town, Center Area B Proffers Dear Bob, The purpose of this letter is to provide co,;~n,ents on the proffers submitted fort. he Hollymead Town Center, Area B (ZMA 01-19). We believe that additional proffers are needed to adequately mitigate the impacts of the development on US 29, particularly at the proposed signal opposite the entrance to Holly Memorial Gardens Cemetery. All proffers should be submilt'ed in a "seamless", or integrated mariner, i.e. proffers pemai,ning to Areas A, B, C, and D inclUSive. ~' VDOT staff believes that it is possible to achieve a tolerable level of serv/ce (C to D) at the proposed intersection of US 29 and Access Road A, and mitigate the proposed Area B impacts at nearby intersections if the following improvements are implemented in a phased approach: · Construction of the crossover at Access Road A in accordance with Attachment A = Two additional through lanes on US 29, One in each direction, fi:om North Hotlymead Drive, to Airport Road · An extension ofNorth Flollymead Drive west of US 29, and connection with an extension of Access Road C. · The extension of Access Road C to a signalized connection with Airport Road. · The extension of Access Road A to Route 743 or Route 606. · Pax~dcipation in a CDA for the purpose of funding regional transportation {n~mstructure improvements that may be id~tified through a future l:tollymead Community Master Plan process, We will convene a meeting at the Charlottesville Residency on June 9, 2003, at 9 a.m. in order to discuss these issues in greater detail. Sincerely, Cc: Don Askew Wayne Cilimberg Weadall Wood Steve Blaine Mark Grahnm 41 ATTACHMENT F Attachm~t A: The following improvements are required to ensure a safe and adequate crossover at the proposed location of Access Road A. Dual left mm lanes on 29 NB and a single right turn lane on 29 SB, at the iatersection of US 29 and Access Road A · Dual left and dual right mm lanes on Access Road 3, at the intersection with US 29 The southbound lanes of US 29 m~st be reeonstmcteel to the profile grade of the northbound lanes, using current design standards. The liraits of this reconstruction shall not be less than 1000' North and South of the proposed crossover. An additional through lane in each direction shall be constructed from 1000' North of the proposed crossover to 1000' South of the proposed crossover, so as to provide six through lanes. · · Ail widening improvements must be done to the outside of the existing four lane section. · Two lanes of northbound and southbound traffic must be maintained at all times during the construction. · The number, length, and geometrics of all turn lanes at the proposed intersection shall be determined by VDOT staff. The applicant shall bear the full cost of these improvements, which shall include the design and installation of the proposed signal, as well as any costs associated with integrating the new signal into the VDOT' s signal control system. The plans shall be in general accord with the VDOT plans for the Route 29 widening, which can be obtained from VDOT staff. The applicant's engineer will be requ/red to submit plans for VDOT approval, and these plans must indicate the attainment of sight distance requirements at the proposed crossover. The sight distance shall be measured from the back of the 95th percentile queue, as deterrpined VDOT staff. The cost of any additional requirements or improvements deemed necessary in the course of site plan review shall be paid by the applicant. In addition, a highway permit will be required prior to any activity on VDOT right-of-way, including the necessary bonding for proffered construction improvements. ATTACHMENTG COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner June 11, 2003 ZMA 01-20 (ltollymead Town Center- Area C) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under current zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes for the property. The resultsofthese two analyses appear in the attached '~Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Sununary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case ofthe first scenario, I assumed that, per the information that you supplied to me, 149,000 square feet of retail space and 336,000 square feet of industrial space could be built during the course of the next year.~ The County's Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $483,000 2,365,000 $2,848,000 ($1,203,000) (622,000) ($1,825,000) $1,023,000 ZMA 01-20 June 11, 2003 Page Two ATTACHMENTG (Please note that the net annual fiscal impact figure of $1,023,000 is different from the $1,022,000 listed in the CRIM printout. This discrepancy is due to rounding errors in the model). In terms of the annual impact that the development of this volume of retail and industrial space would have on the County's capital costs, CRIM estimates the following result: CIP Impact -- Current Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) Schools CF Debt Service ($422,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($422,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0) County CF Debt Service - ($0) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0) Net Annual CIP Impact ($422,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $422,000 in capital costs is part of the $L825,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of 149, 000 square feet of retail space and 336,000 square feet of industrial space). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with such development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 275,000 square feet of retail and/or taxable office space and 120 mulfifamily (MF) and/or single family attached/townhouse (SPA/TH) units on the property. Note that, because of the ambiguity in the actual retail square footage versus taxable office square footage, I assumed that roughly equal amounts of both would be built. (138,000 square feet of retail space, and 137,000 square feet of taxable office space were the figures that I used). I made the same type of assumption for the number dwelling units (60 iMF's, and 60 SFA/TH's). I assumed the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the net annual fiscal impact listed on the following page. ZMA 01-20 June 11, 2003 Page Three ATTACHMENTG Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $395,000 1,708,000 $2,103,000 ($993,000) ($456,000) ($1,449,000) $6547000 As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools C[P Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CI~ Impact ($o) (,357,0oo) (,357,000) ($o) (,0) ($o) ($327,000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $1,449,000 shown previously, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. I shouM point out that the capital costs listed for the proposed project have been estimated using an average cost (AC) methodology. As you and Elaine Echols have mentioned to me, the impact of the Hollymead Town Center on Albemarle's transportation infrastructure might result in costs that wouM be captured better by a marginal cost (MC) analysis than by the AC approach. The CIP impact figures presented in this report, therefore, are subject to revision. 43 ZMA 01-20 June 11, 2003 Page Four ATTACHMENTG The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 01-20, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $654,000 - $1,023,000 = - 369,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $:}69,000 worse off approving ZMA 01-20 than denying the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval ofZMA 01-20 would result in a negative differential net annual fiscal impact on the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 01-20 should be denied, since the totalmix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a desirable revenue outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 01-20, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development likely would take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and environmental well-being. SAA/saa These square footage figures were derived as follows. The property has 11.4 acres of land that presently is zoned C-1. Since there are 43,560 square feet in an acre, this figure equals 11.4 x 43,560 = 496,584 square feet of land. Per you instructions, I used a floor area ratio (FAR) factor of 0.30. This situation means that a total of 496,584 x 0.30 = 148,975 square feet of retail space could be developed on the property. The property has, also, 25.73 acres of land that presently is zoned light industrial (LI). I used, once again, your FAR of 0.30 to render the estimate that 25.73 x 43,560 x 0.30 = 336,000 square feet of industrial'space could be built on the property. ATTACHMENTG A ~ 0 0 0 o ATTACHMENTG o o n ATTACHMENT I CODE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR ABINGTON PLA CE AT HOLL YMEAD TO WN CENTER ZMA 02-02 June 10, 2003 The narrative herein including referenced tables and figures form the Code of Development for ZMA 02-02, Abington Place at Hollymead Town Center. The Code and Application Plan constitute the zoning for the property. Proffers, if provided, exist as a separate document. The Application Plan is a graphic depiction of the zoning district and the following items are to be provided as shown specifically on this Plan. The Code sets the parameters for the physical development. Application Plan The Application Plan was developed consistent with the street layout and block system of the Town Center Master Plan. Seven blocks are identified in the Application Plan and form the basis for discussion regarding the general development plan and Code of Development. Topography at five (5) foot contour intervals and proposed grading are indicated on the Application Plan. The proposed grading ties to the proposed overall grading for the Town Center and, while not insignificant, is minimized within Abington Place by accommodating grade changes through building design and placement. The proposed locations of streets, alleys or access to parking areas, parking areas, and sidewalks are shown on the Application Plan. The road layout as shown indicates intent with Roads D and F running north/south, Road E providing intercormection between Deerwood and the Town Center, and Roads G - I providing secondary connections between Abington Place and other portions of the Town Center. It is expected that flexibility with the road layout will exist as development occurs provided the intent is maintained. For example, Road D is shown centered on the property line between Abington Place and the adjacent property to the east. Should issues arise that require that Road D be entirely within Abington Place it would be allowed. Additionally, the spacing between the centerlines of Roads D and F is generally three hundred (300) feet. This spacing would be allowed to vary provided Roads D and F generally remain in a parallel configuration. Uses - Table A Possible uses for each block are indicated in Table A. Note that a regional stormwater basin is proposed for Block IV. This basin would accommodate stormwater requirements for the Airport Road improvements by VDOT, Laurel Hill Baptist Church, the Regional Post Office Distribution Center, the Wright property, and other Towr~ Center areas in additiOn to Abington Place. 50 · ATTACHMENT I Block II provides the Linear Park connection from the greenway system to central portions of the Town Center consistent with the Town Center Master Plan. An existing cemetery is contained within the Linear Park adjacent to Road D. All types of residential use would be permitted in Blocks III, V, VI and VII, except that multi-family, boarding houses, tourist lodgings, Class B home occupations, assisted living, and rest homes, nursing homes or convalescent homes would not be permitted in Block III. Non-residential use is restricted to Block VII. Quantities of Use, Greenspace and~4menities - Table B As indicated in Table B, potential total uses could total between ninety five (95) and three hundred and seventy (370) residential units, and up to fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of non-residential use. However, the potential maximums indicated would not be reached for residential and non-residential uses. For example, if Block VII is developed as a non- residential use it would reduce potential total residential capacity by up to seventy (70) units. Table B also provides estimates of block size and the percentage of the block used for buildings and parking, greenspace and amenities. Totals for these same items are provided as well. Obviously, block size may change somewhat as development occurs due to other adjustments such as road locations, but minimum percentage requirements for greenspace and amenities by block and in total as shown in Table B will be provided. Overall, a minimum of forty (40) percent of Abington Place will be in greenspace and a minimum of twenty (20) percent in amenities. Description of Amenities- Table C Descriptions of amenities to be provided within Abington Place are contained in Table C. Those amenities include areas set aside for the greenway, the greenway path, a greenway park} a pocket park and the Linear Park. The area set aside for the greenway shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the center of the stream south of Block II, and a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the center of the stream north of Block II. The greenway path will be a paved, ten(10) foot wide multi-purpose path. Additional paths or trails will include nature trail connections to the trail system in Deerwood if allowed, and a combination greenway path, trail system surrounding the stormwater basin in Block IV. The Linear Park will consist of a series of three (3) lawn areas connecting the greenway path to Road D as illustrated in Figure 1. Low retaining wails and/or planted slopes will separate the lawn areas, with trees and sidewalks utilized to frame the lawns. A minimum of eighty (80) feet will be maintained between buildings on either side of the Linear Park, and seating will be provided in each of the lawn areas. In addition to providing a ATTACHMENT I connection between the greenway and other areas of the Town Center, the Linear Park is envisioned as a gathering place for residents of Abington Place. Two additional parks are planned, a greenway park in the northern portion of Block HI envisioned as a picnic and seating area, and a pocket park in Block VI with seating and a tot lot. Building and Lot Characteristics- Table D Quantitative information regarding building height, maximum building footprint size, front build to lines, and side and rear yard setbacks are provided in Table D. Most buildings are envisioned as two (2) or three (3) stories above basement level with one (1) story buildings permitted in certain locations, primarily as end unit townhouses. With a few exceptions, front build to lines are a maximum of twenty (20) feet fi:om the front property line with at least fifty (50) percent of the front building elevation meeting that requirement. Generally building footprints including grouping of townhouses are expected to be no more than eight thousand (8,000) square feet. Allowable footprint sizes in Blocks I, V, and VII could be as large as twenty thousand (20,000) square feet to allow for covered breezeway connections between buildings. A footprint size of twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet would be allowed in Block VII, but would only occur for a non- residential -building. Other architectural guidelines are as discussed below with the intent to produce a built environment reminiscent of mid-America such as Alexandria and Georgetown. Three concept plans provided with the rezoning submission provide an idea of the look of the possible product types. Roofs normally will be pitched. Exceptions could include a non-residential building in Block VII, Federal style residential buildings, or residential buildings with a portion of the roof area utilized for outdoor living space. Roof materials other than for flat roofs will be asphalt shingle, raised seam metal, wood or simulated wood shingle, or slate or simulated slate. Roof colors will be darker earth tones including grays, blacks, greens and browns. Facades of residential buildings will have "punched" window and door openings, traditional cornice, window casings and trim, and corner boards where wood or simulated Wood siding is used. Foundations will be brick, stone, stucco or like kind material, and siding will be brick, stone, stucco, painted wood or simulated painted wood such as Hardiplank or'vinyl. Colors for siding, trim, doors, windows and shutters, will be chosen fi:om a traditional colonial pallet. Should Block VII be a non-residential use the building, with a maximum footprint of twenty five thousand square feet, would be one (1) story above a basement level at grade with parking to the rear of the building. Entrances will be provided streetside and adjacent to the site parking. The building most likely would have a fiat roof and would be ATTACHMENT I designed to appear as multiple attached buildings. Offsets and changes in siding materials will be utilized to add interest and reduce the scale of the building. Siding materials and colors will be as indicated previously for residential buildings. On site parking in all cases is to the rear or side of buildings. Parking required is assumed to be one (1) space per studio apartment within a townhouse unit and two (2) spaces per residential unit otherwise. Should Block VII be a non-residential use, required parking is assumed to be five (5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building space In general, the required mount of parking is supplied within each block. Where parking within blocks is not sufficient more than the deficient amount is provided on street on Roads D, E, and F. Street Design Criteria- Table E Street design criteria are provided in Table E. Note that the information is incomplete for Timberwood Boulevard since that road is to be constructed by others. The intent of the design criteria is to provide the features desired such as bike lanes on Road D, on street parking on Roads D, E, and F, planting strips and sidewalks while minimizing the required roadway and right of way width. Road E is proposed as either pubhc or private because it is intended it be constructed on top of the dam for the regional stormwater basin in Block IV. In order for the road to be accepted by VDOT it is likely the County would have to agree to be responsible for the dam. Should the County agree to accept this responsibility the road could be public. Otherwise, it would have to be private. Road F is proposed as either public or private because it is unknown whether the design intent for the road would be acceptable to VDOT. Should the design desired by the Applicant and the County be acceptable to VDOT the road could be public. Otherwise it would be private. Roads G, H, and I will be private. Sidewalks would vary in width depending on the adjacent use. Five (5) foot widths are proposed for residential areas and ten (10) foot widths for non-residential areas. In areas where sidewalks exceed five (5) feet in width it is expected the excess width will be outside the ROW. Streetsca£ing Guidelines - Table F Streetscaping guidelines are provided in Table F and include proposed tree sizes, spacing of street trees, and street lighting. On Roads D, E, and F large street trees are proposed at forty (40) to sixty (60) feet on center as permitted by utility placement and easements, buildings, and intersection sight distance requirements. On the smaller streets, Roads G, H, and I, medium trees thirty (30) to forty (40) feet on center are proposed. Note that planting strips are not proposed on the smaller streets meaning the street trees will be behind the sidewalks. ATTACHMENT I Street lighting will be provided at most intersections, and at the intersection of the Linear Park with Roads D and F. Where parking is not shielded from the street by buildings, buffering will be provided by streetwalls and/or landscaping. Stormwater Management Stormwater management will be accomplished with the construction of the regional basin in Block VII. This facility will be located in accordance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Hollymead Town Center Master Plan, and the Application Plan which accompanies this rezoning request. While it has not been determined if the facility will be a "dry basin" or a designed with a permanent pool, the preliminary computations provided to the County demonstrate that the facility can be designed to meet the detention and water quality requirements for not only Abington Place, but the bulk of the upstream areas. Specifically, it is planned that this facility will provide stormwater management for the Wright property, VDOT Project 0649-002-158-C501, and that portion of Hurt's property within the Hollymead Town Center which drains toward the pond. Additional benefits may be available for the LaUrel Hill Baptist Church and the Regional United States Postal Distribution Center. Additional water quality measures will be provided downstream of Block IV to ensure that the majority of the fzrst flush is controlled. Potential downstream measures include creation of a stream buffer, at-the-soUrce inlet controls and bioretention areas. These will be allowed in the greenway buffer if required. It is our understanding that the County will continue to pUrsue a larger, instream, regional basin downstream of our property. It is recognized that this basin will be difficult to get permitted by the State and Federal regulatory agencies and could cost more than the cumulative cost of individUal onsite measUres. It is agreed that because of timing and ownership issues associated with the County's basin, the basin in Block VII will be constructed with the first phase of this project. The County has acknowledged that the swale between Abington Place and the Wood property immediately to the south is a favorable location for an offiine stormwater facility. It is anticipated that they will work with Mr. Wood through the master plan review and/or proffers to reserve this area and facilitate the construction of this facility. The owner will work with Mr. Wood on an offline solution in the area described above and other onsite water quality facilities that can also provide some channel protection benefits. If oUr construction proceeds the actual construction oft his off site facility or the County's regional basin, the owner will make provisions as possible to route flow in their general direction. ATTACHMENT, J "','."~ .... "'" CODE OF.DE.V. EEO.P..MENT..TABL"'E.A~:.'.~..'. er. mltted, ses,.IJy.Block. '-" * R= Perm/ted uses by block: SP - Hscs flint ma,; where a Special Use Pcrm'.'.t may he ap.~. cd ,or.: Brai ks - ~mt i~crmilted tlm bh',ck. ~Detached s.'.m, gle family R R R R R · duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and '., patio homes, accessory apartments, and studios within townhouses. R R R R R · ::1 A studio is defined as a separate independent dwelling unit : R.:.:! contained within the structure of and clearly subordinate to the e'...p.r.'.m~...r/....m.'.t.. ..................................................................................................................... .u.: ~.o.m. ~..f.o~.~eyy?~.m.?S1I. y. Ai>~)I~.~S?.~ .(SS~ 2 :L°.L): ............. s ' 8.o~xho.¢~S~. ......................................................... B ...... , ............. ~ ...... g ....... E.. 'e.. To.~.t_19.d.~g~..(~.~.f.?.~.n.?..s. ..5 ~.D.. ..................................... .r3. ................................ .R. ...... .R. ....... R.... s ~ .o.m. ~..oss~za.tLo~:..CAs~..5 .(.r.ef. es.enc, e .&2.l .............................. Home occu afion, Class B reference 5 2) R R Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings (Also R R ' R R R · ..ap~lj~..t.o.~.on-~.s.i~.e~.a!.~.~.~.0 ....................................................................... ·................ .'.. ~.~t.e.d. J~y~. .......................................................... .R. ............................... E ....... '...;Rest home, nursing homes, or convalescent homes . R R R IR .A...d~. ~ .m.' s. g.a.t, iy.e.,.l? .r 9.f.e.s.s.i.o.n.a. 1..o..ffi..c .e.s: ................................................................... , R Animal Shelter. .A..n.ti.q .u.e: .g/~., j .e.w..elry...., .n. 9 .b.c..n..a~..d..c~ .shgp. fi: .......................................................... [ ..................... .R... .:' Auction homes. :. N; i .A..u.tg.m..o.b.i.l.e.!a.~d.r.i.e.s... ................................................................................................ o.~ 5.u.t.o.m..o.b.~:.~.~y.p.~..~o.p ~.o.l~d.¢.g.b..o.d.~ ~.op... .......................................... n.5..u.tg.m..o.b.i!e..s.eg.i.c.e..st.a.¢p.n..s .(.r.e.f.e.r.e.n.c..e.5... !:2..0): .................................................................................. , - ~.r,.b.~.a~.~.O.o~s.: .................................................... E.. ~i,' '~.o.d.x.S.h..o~.. ....................................................................................................................... i.':s::!: Churches ................................................. 13''' e .-: .C.[~.b_.s,. ?.d.~ .e.s,..c:yjS_, .¢.a!~..re.C:. e.a?..u_o..(.r?f.e.~.e.~.c~ .%1..2): ............................ [ ...................................... .a.. .n' Commercial kennels - indoor on.ly. (reft 5.1.11) i i ' Commercial recreation estabhshments including but not limited to I a'.'., amusement centers, bo..w..l~, g. alleys, p. ool halls and dance halls. [ '. '.:; Contractors office and eqmpment storage yard. · .'' Convenience stores. [ : R U-Day. care, childcare, ornurs.e, ry. facilitz(ref. 5.1.06) / I R : ............ ~'? ................................................................. ~ ..... r ................................... r ....... e. '/ [ SP s _D. rive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. · . ~Dru~ store, r)harmacv. | R ' · ' .E.d..u.c.a. tJ 9.n.a.l.,.t.e.c..I~. J.c.a.l.a..n.d..t[a..d.e..s ¢~2 9 ~ ~: .................................... [ ........ [ ........ L ........ L ........................ ................................................................................... .~.o,:~ i ........ ii ...... )';i. ...... ',':'.~ ...... .'".: ....... "71 ....... ".;:i" l)cu)chcd sinu)c t~amiiv R R R R R Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as R R R I R duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and ~afio houses, accessory apartments, and studios within townhouses. . .a.e..~.t.~!.o_f.p.e..~..'~%~.~.~.~.d..~.~.!.,?.e.~. .................................. '"~ ...... ~ ................ ~/ ...... ~ ...... 'fi" ~o..~.~.d:~o.~.~_s. ..................................................... R , R R R T.o. ~s.t. !o..d.~. .g~_ .(~.~.¢.~.~.n.~. e. .~. : ! : ~. y): .................................. R R R R Home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) '"~ ...... ~ ................. ff ....... ~""~ ""ff" Home occu afion, Class B .~eference 5 2) R R R R Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings (Also R R R R R .~p~.lj.~.s..t .o .~..on-.~.e.~j.d.~ .~.~.~..,.~.~.s) .................................................................... . ................... ,: ........... Assisted hying. R [ R R R ~.est h, ome, nursin~a.~.o.mes, ,or co.nv, alescent ho,re_es ....... R ...... _.R.. R R k--d~T~'a;i~,[~ofessionil ;7~;e;.-- ...... ' "-- ........... ~ ..... ~--' '--R' ~i'/~;i;;;. ' ................................................. ' .... : ............................... :1": ...................... Anti ue, if~, 'ewe , notion and craft sh.op.s ......................... ....~.q .... s...j .... .:~., ....................... . ......................... ~ .................... .a... Auction houses. Automobile laundries. Automob/le, truck .r.e~air shoD excluding body sh.ol~.. Automobile service stations .(.r. eference 5.1.2.0). · ...................................................................................... ........................... Barber, be.a.u~ sh.o~.s. R ~o..dy. 5h..o~_.. .............................................. ~. ........................................................................ ~ .u!~.d.¢.~..m.~.t.~.¢.aJ.~.~..~!~. s.: ................................................................................ . ............... Churches ~ R U;~;[;;i'e'~ ..................................................................... ~[ ~Jfi't'~i~[t'e'~'t~'~.'u'r'r'e'~i'~'s~. '"' ............... Clotlzing,' ..... : .................................................................................. apparel and shoe shoes. · [ ' ...................... [ [ ........... ~t'" U/,;;~;;;hi i;~'~'ff: '~h'~;;7 ;~.' i;; ?~ ~:¥. i'i~ ............. : ....... ! ................. [ .... '"'[ ........ [ ................. ~ ...... ...................................................................... i ................. ~-. ....... ~ ........ ~ ........ 17 ............... .~!..:..2 .... '.',~ .... i:....~.!.~. .... .Y.:P..... ...... .~ .... d...~.c:.2L..: ....................... [ ........ [ ........ l- ........ i: .............. Contractors' office ~d e.qu.i~me~t stora~,e ~',ard. , l l L DaT. care, ch/ld care, or nurse.ry, facili~ (ref. 5.1.06) i [ [ L i R ~;bT~'e.;¢;;;;;: .................................................. i ................. [ ........ [ ........ l- ........ ' ........ ~" ~!:' ..................................................................... s' ' Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. i Drive-in theaters Eat,'.m.g establ/shment (not includin fast food restaurant i[ [ [ R ................................... ~.g .................... 9_ ............ ~ ........................................................ ....................... ..... ................. , ........ L ........ [ ....................... rJ ATTACHMENTJ' * R: Permited uses by block; SP = Uses that may where a Special Use Permit may be applied for,,; Blanks: Use not permitted within the block. ~:. ~'.c~-: 'i?';" ", '. :..-:-' :~ [,ii"'~:]'~ .~ ...... 'i:''~':'' ...... ?'~ ......... ?'- ....... ~."!7':"." ........ .: .... '::'¥: 7 .... ~":"::.',' .... :: /'..'' · '. ...... :'... ,.:: ...~ ........ r~ .... ; .................................... 2~..-.2~--2 ............ ..2; .......... 2. 2 ............. 2 .... 2 ......... 2 : :i Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower ' structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and "i ] operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pump/ng stations and appurtenances owned and · ..:operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as Iq R Iq Iq R R Ft 7:: ::,i'!i otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central , :~ sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of ':i · i Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Also applies to residential '"':;uses.) .,. ]. .F.a..rm..ey.s~ ..n~a..r.k.e.t..(~.e.f.e_r .e.n.c.e..5.:[..3..6}: .................................... .- ....................................... :-i~ :: .F.a.s.t. go.o.d..r.e.s.t.a.ur..~t... ................................................................................... .......................... · ,:. : Factory ontlet sales - clothing and fabric. , · _ . .F.e.e..d..ag..d..s.e.e.d..s.tp.r.e.s..(.~er.e.~e.~.~.s..k..2.2.)... ........................................................................................ · ] Financial institutions. Iq .- .$.k..e..e .x.t!n. gui....s.h.e.r..a.n.d..s.e.c. ~i~. p..r.o..ds~tp~ .~l~ L~¢. ~ ~S ~:.. .................................................................... ~: ? F!r.~.~.d..~.?.u.~..s.q~.d..s.t.a.a.°..~.~.¢~f.e.~.e..n.c.~. 5..3:9.9).: ............................................................................ .~... ' ': Florist. F1 :f Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, : ,.:1 .c~:.--m%--.-d-~-ze-qs.~.-~.-d--w-c-~-.-~-.d.-qhY-e.~gn~: ............................................................................ .. i .F.u.n..~La.~.h..o.m..~.~: .............................................................................................................. .a... .. ' I Furniture and home apphances (sales and service). R "' i-i~a~[t}~'~t'~;~.' ............................................................................................................. [~" :. :i ~?.aLm..~.a.~: ......................................................................................................... .~... .. '.: ~e.a~s..o.q .~.~j.~.~. ~.d..di.'.sE!b..u.t i.o..n; ¢.~..fe.~.e._n.~s..S: .~:.2.0a.. ................. · .::.,i Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, i} exterm/rmtors, landscaping and other repair and maintenance ?' services. ~:.'.":'"!:~i ii;;;,'i;;i; .................................................................................................. ' ....... ' ............... i ' '"::!! Hotels, motels and inns. Fl :.:;i[a}l'~ ;[ '~'~ ~t'~r'~ ........................................................................................................... ; ....... .. :;, ~.d.o.o..L~..thjy. tjs.¢.s~lj~?.: ...................................................................................................... :-... '! .L.a.b. 9.r.a,tp.rj.e.s:. .m.e.d.i.c.a. 1..o.r.p..b.a..r~..a..c.e.u.t.i.c.a.1 .................................................................................. : ka.~.dr, j.e.s:..~..c. 1.e..a .n.e.r.s.. ......................................................................... R .- ,Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours, .:':dur.'.m.~ operafio_n). . .................................................... ~ ::. k(b.~?.~.,..m.u.~..e..u~.... ......................... .................................................................................. ..a... .} i .~)~.h.t..w..a.~.~ko..u.s~. a_.. ............................................................................................................ ': Livestock sales ': Medical center, R : · .~..o.d..uLa.Lb..u.qd. ~. S.~..~!e.~.: ........................................................ .M.p.W- y.e..h/.c. 1.e..s_a.l.e.s., .s.e.~ i.c.e..a..n.d..r .eF.t.a.1: .......................................................................................... :' Musical instrument sales New automotive l~arts sales. .N. ? .w. ~.s. ta~.d.~:..~..S.~.z~, y.s.,.p .~p .~' .~..d..t.o.b.a..qqo. ?F.o.S.~: ............................................................................ .~.._ 5e.w.s.~,.ap. ez p.u_.bF.s..~..S: ........................................................................................................ ?.u.b..n~ .u.~ s..~.a.k~.q_d~g..~. ............................................... B ....... .a. ...... B ....... ~ ....... B ....... B ...... .~... Research and development activities including experimental testing iq Be. t.a.i.1..n.u.r.s.e.r.i.e.s..an_d. Kr..e.e..nh..o.u.s..e .s: ................................................. iq p.f.fi.c_e..a.n.d..b..u.s.iF.e.s.s..m..a.c.hi. ?. s..s.a.l.e.s..a.n.d..s.e..n/.i.c.e.: .......................................................................... I. ;..~.... ATTACHMENT J B!ock I II III IV V VI VII :~ .o.~..al. ~o..o.~.~..~.~.].~.~ .................................................................................................. ~.-- .~ Outdoor Amphet~eatre · ',: Outdoo~ sto~age, ~spay and/or sales sezvL~g or associated with a b~ :' : right permitted ues, if any portion of the use would be visible fi'om a , SP '~"'i .:; Professional offices, includ'_mg medical, dental and 9p_fical. ' ~ i Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). R [ R R R I . ... Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site · ?.~m.o.r.s..u.b.a.i.~.~j.o.n. ~l~t.. .......................................................................................................... : Temporary construction uses (r. eference 5.1.1.8),. r Fl Fl Fl · Te.m. pora.ry, nonresidential mobile homes (r. eference 5.8}. - Visual and audio appliances sales Ft ' -'~Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference '.. Wayside stands - vegetables and aghcultural produce (reference p, · . .fl Wholesale Distribution ATTACHMENT J ATTACHMENTJ 60 ATTACHMEN¥ J o ~ w~ r- .o ._ >~ G1 ~"~: ~jZ~'~¢'CODE~OE:':DEVELOPMENT:TABEE.E~-'~ Street. Desto n ~r~terma~z~.-.~`.:~.:~:~i~.~~::.~..~::~=~:~:~......`..~ t Publicor '.Max. Traffic Travel Travel Bike Bike ' Parking Parking Median Curb-to- Min. Min. ROW Max. Private Desigq F;ow Lanes Lane, Lanes Lane Lnnes Lane curb Piantir'.g Sidewa!k Width (3) Curb Speed Widti~ Width Width width S.:rip Width Radii _ (2) Wic:h Public 30 2 way 2 i0 2 5' 2 j t' None 44' 6' 5' 68' 20' I' ' I i I I ._ I Either 25 2 way 2 I 9' J None I N/A 2 7' None 32' 6' 5' 56' 15' · ~ ~ I . ' ' I ' ' · ,,,' I i , I'! i .~ z t Nc:'o 32' o' 5' I 56' i -c '1 Eilhor 25 2way 2 , n, j Nc:'.o . N:~~ J w~.y ii 9' ii I i J , N,~ne j , I Privat. e 20 2 2 ! '" J N~A Nc:'e N.--'A Nc...'~e , 8 0' J 5' 30' ' i I J Priva,.e 20 2 way 2 J 9' ' J J J 8' J ,, I ! !,. ~ I j,. ! !, 2w~vI 2 i 9' No,;e i : Nc.';o N;A I Nc'~,.; I ,8' I ' , '' ~ ' I I I ~ I ! ;Y 30' ~,~. I ~ i i ~..~! ! _1~_ i. ~__. ! I . supplied by others. ~alk on ether side of road. Portions of sidewalks exceeding five feet in width may be outside ROW. 'lA ~1oo1~ u! ~,aaJls 'pax!gu aq XelAI alt]. o]. ].uaoe!pe t~U!~lJed al~s Xue 'slua~aJ~nbaJ Xluno0 'laa4s jo sap,s ~loq uo S~le~ap~s ON ,0~- ,0g ,0 IA I peo~ uaaJos ol pap~AoJd aq I1~ Ja~nq alJe~aqw Jad pall~Jad pu~aq pap~AoJd aq ol - ~n~pa~ pedeospuel Jo/pue lle~ae4s V esoq~ ~oJj pe]oeleS ~ 'paxi~ aq XeR · j puc Q speoM 's~ua~e~!nba~ X~unoo qaa4s ~o sep!s q~oq uo S~le~ep!s q~!~ suo!~oesJe~u! W alJe~eqlV ~ad pe~!~Jad ,0~ - ,0g pu!qaq pep!AoJd aq o~ - ~nipa~ ,0 IA 'A H peo~ eso~l ~oJj paloalaS 'A ~OOl~ u! teeJlS ' 'pex!~ aq XeR eql Ol lueoefpe ~ui~Jed ails Xue '~ pue Q speoM 's~ua~aJ!nbaJ Xlunoo 'A ~3Ol8 ol luaoerpe ~le~ep!s ueeJos ol pep!AoJd eq II!A Je~nq qli~ suo!loesJelu! 1V alJe~eqlV Jed pelii~Jed ,0~ - ,0S puiqaq pep!AoJd eq ol - ~nipe~ ,0 A 9 peoM pedeospuel Jo/pue Ile~eeJls V . .asoql woJj paloaleS · pax!~ eq '~Jed Jeau~q pue '9 pue 'H '3 speo~ 'slua~eJ!nbeJ Xlunoo e~Je~ ,9 IA 'h '111 '11 '1 j peoM q~!A suo]ioasJalu~ lV i alJe~eqw Jed.pall]~Jad . ,09 - ,0~ 'IIA ~0Ol8 u! ~ee4s 'pex!w eq XeR 'q~p!~ u! ~eej ue~ jo wnw!u!w e eql ol lueoe[pe 6u!~ed elis Xue '~ pue O speoM 'SluewaJ!nbeJ ~lunoo s! ~le~eP!s pue le!luep!saJ-uou s~ esn :. ueeJos Ol pepiAoJd eq II]~ Je~nq q}i~ su~oasje~ui lV elJe~aqlV Jed pell!~Jad ,09 - ,0~ J! IIA ~0Ol8 u] sjelueld Jo Slle~ aG J1 ,9 IIA 'IA 'Al '111 '... 3 peoM pede0spuel. Jo/pue Ile~ea4s V I09Oql BOJJ peloalaS u] pue wn!pew eq Xew ldeoxa I'pax!w eq Xe~ '4~P!~ ul ~eej ue~ Jo wnwlu~w e U~ " ' ~'~ s~ue~a4nbaJ X~unoo 'si ~le~ep!s pue le!~uep!saJ-uou si esn e.¢ oi ]uaos[pe 5ui~Jed a~!s ~t~e '~Jed Jeeul~ .... , · · · pue '3 pue 'H '~ s2eoM ,09 -,0~ ,9 IIA 'iA 'A G peoM ueoJ3s o~ pap~AoJd aq Ii!~', Jo;jnq ~!~ suo~oasJa~u~ ~V aiJeweqw Jed pe~iwJed J! IIA ~0Ol8 u! sJa~ueld Jo Sila~.~ pedeospuel ~o.'pL:a_ i;et¢4ea;~s V aso~ ~oJJ pa~OalaS, u! pue wn!PeW eq Xew ~daoxe 'aSje~ 'IIA ~0oi8 u! laaJ;s ':paxiw eq Xe~ 'q~pi~ u! ~eej ual jo ~n~!u!~ e .' a,~" o]. lueoefae. ~;~Jed. e;!s Xue -s~uawe4nbeJ X~unoo Sl~le~ep~s. .... pue le ~uap saJ-uou si asn pJeAelno8 uaoJos o~ pep~AoJd aq I!F~ Jejjnq sea elJe~eqlv Jed peii~wJed ,09 - ,0~ J~ IIA ~OOlS u! sJelueld Jo SllO~ aa J1 ,9 liA 'Al poo~eqw~l padeospuel Jo/pde Iie~,iea4s V esoq~ ~og pa~oeleS ui pue ~n]pe~ eq Xe~ ]daoxa ATTACHMENT K ? ./ / // / / / · :il ~: - J-! '!-~ ~_ -: :. . ,'. ~ ~,-'- ~';' i ,._ .-' ''~ I .'.-' '. :'::. 7-' · .-~, :..l.~ .-:' 'i · ' i ", ", ' ",," ...... '~ ; -;:"i ', , '-, \ ', ' ~,, \ i , ~ ', " "\ ~ " ...... ', ', ', ', \ · '~ , , , ,., ,., ., ~ ,, \ ', ,, ~ /'/' / _.-" ~ ', , ,, ,, , ,, .. '. , , ,, \ \ ,, ; ; '/ / / I-- ,~[ ::...:,,¢ l l '.'.l';;~,' · ! ./ COUNTY OF ALBEMARI,E ATTACHMENT 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Senior Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner /~4,~. June 11, 2003 ZMA 02-20 (Hollymead Town Center - Area D) I analyzed two separate scenarios for the property in question. The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under current zoning, while the second scenario involved the new development that would occur if the County apProved the proposed zoning changes for the property. The remlts of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Current Zoning" and "Budget Surmnary: Proposed Zoning" documents. In the case of the first scenario, I assumed that, per the information that you supplied to me, 5 Single Family Detached (SFD) units could be built during the course ofthe next year. The County's Cost' Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) estimates that, after build-om,' the type and level of development that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact: Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $7,000 14,000 $21,000 ($19,000) (6,000) ($2s,000) ($4,000) ZMA 02-20 June 11, 2003 Page Two ATTACHMENT O In terms of the annual impact that the development of this number of residential dwelling units would have on the County's capital costs, CRB/[ estimates the following result: CIP Impact -- Current Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CH' Impact ($o) ($7,000) ($7,ooo) ($o) ($o) ($o) ($7,000) Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page. (The $7,000 in capital costs is part of the $25,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures resulting from the development of five SFD 's). These CIP numbers are presented separately to highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that would be associated with $uch development. The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 50,000 square feet of retail and/or taxable office space and 300 multifamily (MF) and/or single family attached/townhouse (SFA/TH) units on. the property. Note that, because of the ambiguity in the actual retail square footage versus taxable office square footage, I assumed that equal amounts of both would be built. (25,000 square feet of retail space, and 25,000 square feet of taxable office space were the figures that I used). I made the same type of assumption for the number dwelling units (150 MF' s, and 150 SFA/TH's). I assumed the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, this project would have the net annual fiscal impact listed on the following page. ZMA 02-2O June 11, 2003 Page Three ATTACHMENT O Fiscal Impact -- Proposed Zoning Property Taxes Other Revenues Total Revenues School Expenditures County GoVt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $296,000 845,000 $1,141,000 ($986,000) ($349,000) ($1,335,000) ($194,000) As for the impact of this proposed development on the County of Albemarle's capital costs, CRIM estimated the following outcome: CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CI~P Impact Net Annual CIP Impact ($o) ($355,000) ($355,ooo) ($o) ($o) ($o) ($355,ooo) Again, these CIP nmnbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $1,335,000 shown previously, and are presented separately to illustrate the relative magnitude of capital costs. I should point out that the capital costs listed for the proposed project have been estimated using an average cost (AC) methodology. As you and Elaine Echols have mentioned to me, the impact of the Hollymead Town Center on Albemarle's transportation infrastructure might result in costs that would be captured better by a marginal cost (MC) analysis than by the AC approach. The CIP impact figures presented in this report, therefore, are subject to revision. 7O ZMA 02-20 June 11, 2003 Page Four ATTACHMENT O The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the County approves ZMA 02-20, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $4,000 - $194,000 = -190,000. This number means that, annually, the County would be $190,000 worse off approving ZMA 02-20 than denying the proposal. Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval of ZMA 02-20 would result in a negative differential net annual fiscal impact on the County, this fact alone does not necessarily mean that ZMA 02-20 should be denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year might generate a desirable revenue outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 02-20, the growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development likely would take place somewhere else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues other than just the project's fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing, transportation impacts, and envkonmental well-being. SAA/saa ATTACHMENT O r~zn' zo A- 0~000~0000000~000~00000 0~000~0000000~000~00000 0~000~0000000~000~00000 ~00 ~00~ 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT 0 I- ra 0 o o 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 ',., Subjecr: 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, .,/-~ James L. Bryai~ ? Resid.ent 'Engineer ,/ TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21sT CENTURY TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY VIRG]2qlA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM' CULPEPER DISTRICT TRAFHC ENGINEERING SECTION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mr. Chuck Proctor _ ~'~/~-/'~/~ ~ff.~ul~et)er, Virginia Steve Black ~t/-/tr~_~_~_-i. ~ ~au- May 1,'~03 Dis~ct Traffic Eng~eer ' Z~3 ~ ~ESID~N . Hell, cad Tom Center 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. Theadditional 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/'or a high priority regional corridor like Route 29 should be'about one mile. An access point across from the ex/sting 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 Bwan Mr. Marshall Barren Mr. Matt Grimes Ms. Anne Hagan Mr. Paul Balderson, Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Hollymead Town Center (Area B) ZMA 01-19, SP 02-63, & SP 02-64 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezoning request to rezone 24.7 acres from RA, 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 41 D, 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: CONSENT AGENDA: 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 be reviewed with public hearings by the Planning Commission on May 27th and by the Board of Supervisors on June 11th. (See Attachment 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 I 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 Earlysville 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 ofthe 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 Outpa,rcels 3 & 4. Unexpected changes include additional square footage for the big box, V/ 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 to 5%) 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 Power 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 i//l · 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- thr°ughs 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 E ATTACHMENT A Forest Springs MHP 02- ~' ~:ZMA 01. ...\Hollymead\hollymead.rdl 05/06/2003 01:40:01 PM ZMA C Id North Vicinity Map CPA Boundary ZMA Areas COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Michael Barnes, Planner Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner March 3, 2003 Preliminary Fiscal Impact Analysis of ZMA 01-19 0tollymead 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, after 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 ~$866,000~ ZMA 01-19 March 3, 2003 Page Two Note that the figures cited above differ slightly from those in the CRIM printout. This discrepancy results from rounding errors in the model. In terms of the annual impact that the development of 5 SFD's and 246,000 square feet of retail space would have on the County's capital costs, CR1M estimates the following result: CIP Impact - Existing Zoning Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go Schools CF Debt Service Total Schools CIP Impact County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact Net Annual CIP Impact. ($o) ($84,ooo) ($84,000) ($0) ($o) ($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 would 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 Total Revenues School Expenditures County Govt. Expenditures Total Expenditures Net Annual Fiscal Impact $192,000 1,257,000 $1,449,000 ($260,000) (114,000) ($374,000) $1~075~000 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) ($85,000) Total Schools CIP Impact ($85,000) County CF Pay-As-You-Go County CF Debt Service ($o) ($o) Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($o) Net Annual CIP Impact ($85~000) Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $374,000 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 $208,000 better off approving ZMA 01,19 than denying the proposal. Note: Although my analysis suggests that the approval 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 o 0 ~o~ ~o ~oo 0 0 0 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ZONING SECTION 8 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS - GENERALLY Seetiolls: 8.1' 8°2 *' :'8;4'. "8.5.1'/ 8.5.2 8;5.3 =8.5.4' 8:5.5' ... '8;5.6.1 8.5,6.2 ,, g.5.6.3 8.5.1L4 8~5.6.5 8.1 'INTENT INTENT RELATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO GENERAL ZONING, SUBDMSION OR OTmV, R REGULATIONS -: · . PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DEFINED WHP, RE PERMITTED PROCEDLIRES FOR PD APPLICATIONS APPLICATIONS, MATERLALS TO BE SUBMITTED PLANNING COMIMISSION PROCEDURES PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCES . !.,.~.. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO Tm*, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDMSION PLAT.S. .... CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDIVISION PLATS VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED APPLICATION PLANS BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PE1LMITS SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS © .)1. ~ Plarmed development districts are intended to provide for variety and flexibility ,.,.. ' -necessary to implement the varied goals and objectives of the county as set fo~h ~ the. · approach, these special re~lali:ons' S-i ~ comprehensive plan. Through a planned develYment ........ are intended to accomplish the purposes of zoning and other applicable regulations to the ;; .~ .~, same extent as regulations of conventional districts. In addition, planned develop~e..nt. "}~ ~:"'i regulatmns' ' 'are intended' to promote: economical and efficient land use througk. '~";"~" development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious "physical -I~.¢i5 -~' development; creative design; and a better environment than generally realized through ' conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages o~.~larmed ,%...:~ development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned dev. .,..-- ~¢t ~. c ~: .gpproach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character. :.!;...~5..!i.~Plarmed development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and "~/3 '-~ ~ .... -..v.¢.convemence of residents; to facilitate protection of the character of surrounding (hS.,';~heighborhoods; and to lessen traffic impact through a reasonably short tra¥~l~':~me :'-; between or~gins and destinations of persons living, worldng, or visifing.i'~ha such ~.,'~ ~.i'(:;~.developments. Housing~ commercial and service facilities, and places of eml3'10yment ':. ' shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks .s6:jas "i-:i' Pf°m°te these objectives. 18-8-1 ALB£MARL. E cov~vrr coD:~ Attachment R-5 ZO~G, SUBDI~SION OR OT~R ~G~ATIONS ,~: ~ :~-~ ~e follo~ng pro~sions shall apply generMly to the establis~ent ~d re~afid~ ~h~ed development dis~cts. ~ere co~icts occ~ be~een the special PD here~ and general zoning, subdi~sion or other relations or requirem~ts, these.sp'~m~l ~e~atons shall apply ~ PD ~skicts ~less the board of supe~sors shall find; in p~c~ case: (a) t~t pro~sions h~ein do not se~e public p~oses to a degee, at.:ita&{ equival~t to such general zoning, subdivision or other re~atons or requiremen¢~ or (b) that actions, desi~ or solutions proposed by the applic~t, although not lit~l~y.in accord ~ ~ese special or general re~lations, sats~ public p~oses to at equival~t de,ce. It is specifically pro~ded, however, ~at where ~oor ~ea and;&i~hr ratios have been established by ~ese re~lafions, ~e bo~d shall not act in a p~c~ case to alter said taros. :;~.: ..... Except as pro~ded above, proced~es and requ~ements set fo~h herein and ~ adopted for p~icular PD dis~icts shall apply in such PD dis~icts. .': · . :. ,~:Yor p~oses of ~ese relations, a plied developm~t is: h~ Land under unified control to be planned and developed as a whole; Either in a single development operation or a programmed series of uevem, t~ent °ver""°ns'" °+; ' <Lm ~'he In accordance w/th approved application plans; and d] Programmed for provision, operation and maintenance ot such areas,~ ~acmBeg-'mqa improvements as will be for common use by some or all of the 8.4 Wl~RE PERMITTED ..... ~; ....... r Planned development districts may hereafter be established by amendment to the map where tracts suitable in location and character for the uses and structures are to be planned and developed as units according to the requirements and pr.~.dt{re~ .s.et forth herein. PD districts shall be appropriately located with respect to the patt.e:m, a,n.d.. ':~;' ':'" '·timing of the development proposed in the comprehensive plan, and to public and',p.n,.'y.at. _e. · ~' . facilities existing or scheduled to be available when required by the development: ,. "~ 8.5 PROCEDURES FOR PD APPLICATIONS ../. 8.5,1 APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED '~ Applications for PD districts shall be submitted as for other zoning map ame~.~m..e.r~t,_s~ Material submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the commissign.: .ska.:!l include alt plans, maps, studies and reports which may reasonably be required, :.t:o ~ak¢ the detemnnabons .... called for ~n the partmular case, with sufficient cop~es for_ ne.c.~s..,~...~ referrals and records. More specifically, all oft he following shall be required: "~,..: a. LoCation of tract or parcel by vicinity map at a scale of not less than ond :~' ': "'~ ~equals two thousand (2,000) feet, and landmarks sufficient to properly ide~f~ location of the property; " b. An accurate boundary survey of the tract or plan limit showing the location of boundary evidence; ~tCrn 18-8-2 cot rr coo Attachment c. Existing roads, easements, ~d utilities; waterco~ses ~d their names; ,9~e~s, zomg, present use of adjo~g ~acts, ~d location of resid~fial s~c~.:O~.. adjoining ~acts, if any; ''~ d. Location, ~e and size of in,ess and e~ess to the site; -~ ~ e. Existing topo~aphy acc~ately shorn Mth a mximum of five (5) foot ~t~als at a scale of not less th~ one hunted (100) feet to ~e ~ch. O~er iht¢~al ancot scale may be req~ed or p~i~ed by the ~ector of topo~ap~c considerations w~ant; - ~ ,- f. Flood pla~ l~ts whch shall be established by c~ent soil s~ey, C~s En~neers s~ey, an~or en~neer~g me,ods; g. Co~ection to e~sting and proposed Vk~ia D~ent of ~ghways cons~cfion and proposed comprehe~ive pl~ thoroughf~es wh~ necess~; h. A minim~ of ~o (2) dam references for elevations to be used on plans and"~r~}'~} and co, elated, where practical, to U.S. Geolo~cal S~ey da~; ~. ~:~.;~;' i. A repo~ idemi¢ing all ~ope~ o~ers ~t~ ~e proposed ~s~ct e~dence of rafted consol of its entire area. The repo~ shall state present prope~ o~mers to: 1. Proceed ~th the proposed development accor~g to re~lations exi~n~'~ the map amendment creat~g the PD dis~ict is approved, with such modi~i~. as ~e set by · bo~d of superhsors and a~eed to by the applic~t at the II~ 2. Prohde bonds, dedication, ~ar~tees, a~eements, con, acts, ~d' res~cfio~ acceptable to the board of sup~sors for completion ..of suck development according to a~roved plans, ~d for con~mg opera.on. ~int~ce of such ~eas, facilities ~d f~ctions as ~e not ~ be p~O~ded, operated or ma~tained at geritol punic expose; ~d such de&eati'e~s~ con~ibufions or ~ar~tees as ~e req~red for pro. sion of needed' public facilities or se~ces; ~d 5 '.~:, 3. B~d trek successors in 6ne to =y comim~ts made ruder 1 or 2 above;' j. ~ application plan sho~g g~eral road aliments and proposed e raa f de s c le d e s a ~eral at~' gne 1 li~mento si walk,biyc an p de~wys;g w '~:s~. and aom drayage lay-out; general p~g and loa&g areas aad ckc~afion' location of recreation facilities; existing woOded ~eas and ~eas to remain of =d uses including and derisives =d goss aoor co~ercial ~d indus~al uses, prelimina~ lot lay-out and proposed topo~dp~7. ' ' ~ }15.,'. 0[.. Mth a m~imm of five (5) foot conto~ inte~als. (~ended 9-9-92) ,,~[,:- 8.5.2 PL~NG CO~SSION PROCED~S -d' ~ applications for PD ~s~cts, the commssion shall proceed in general as f0f rezoning applications but shall ~ve special consid~afion to ~e following shall allow changes in original applications as indicated below. -~ '~':' 8.5.3 ~APPLICATION CO~E~NCES .... ~"~ ~'~: ' iTM Applicants ~e required to meet wi~ the plying staff and other qu~ified officia!8' to renew ~e application pl~ ~d original proptsal prior to submi~al. The p~ose preapplicafion conference shall be to assist in brining the application ~d '~tkfial. ~ ~.,p.. 18-8-3 '~ msi~' ~ %:{ 79, co vrr coD Attach subdued ~ere ~th as nearly as possible imo confo~ ~th ~ese or o~ re~lafi~ a~plying in the case, an~or to define specific variations ~om application of re~- ......... · (, ~'.~ which would othe~se apply whmh seem jushfied m mew of eqmvalent semce' o~.~ public p~oses of such regulations. ' ' ~ ~'' ~ the co~se of such preapplicafion conf~ences, any reco~endations for ch~ge~, shall be recorded in ~ting, and shall become pa~ of the record ~ the case. reco~endafions shall be supposed by stated reasons for the proposed c[~[~ Applic~ts shall indicate, ~ ~ifing, their a~eement to such reco~en~fions, ~[ · sa~eement ~d their reasons therefor. Response by applic~ts shall also be ~clgde~::5n the record ..... 8.5.4 PL~NG COM~SSION ~CO~~ATIONS TO T~ BO~ OF .... ~" ' SUPER~SORS At such time as f~her conferences appear ~ecess~, or at ~y time on requ~}~o~ applicant, ~e co~ission shall proceed to prep~e its reco~endations to the'~6~fl'~ supemsors. The ~te of the co~ssion's det~ation to proceed, or of ~e applig~'~ request for pr~ation of reco~endations, s~ll be deemed the fomal date ..of sub~ssion of the application. Specifically, reco~endations of ~e .',. , ~clude findings, as to: -.,~... a. ~e suitabili~ of ~e ~act for the g~eral ~e of PD dis~ct ~oposed ~ · - relation to ~he comprehensive pl~; physical c~actehsfics of the land;='~d 'it~ relation to s~o~d~g ~ea; :?~ ~. ~,~1:~ b. Relation to ~jor roads, utilities, public facilities ~d s~ces; c. Adequacy of evidence on ~ified con~ol and suitabfli~ of any ~oposed a~~[ con, acts, deed resections, s~ehes, dedications, con~ibutions, gu~antees, ins~ents, or the need for such ins~ments or for amendments in those '' ~d =;:;'" "d. Specific modificafiom ~ PD or general regulations ~ applied to ~e'p~icul~ ~:~ based on detestation that such mo~ficafions are necess~ or justi, fic'~;'~by demons~afion that the public p~oses of PD or general re~lafions as applie~'~o~lG be satisfied to at least an equiv~ent de~ee by such modifications. '-: ........ Based on such findings, the co~ssmn sh~l reco~end approval of the PD m~ff~eh~ as proposed, approval cond~oned upon shpulated mod~ficatmns, or d~sap~oval. ~.~"'; 8.5.5 AC~ON BY BO~ O~ S~ER~SORS [" "~ ~ applications for PD ~s~cts, the board of sup~sors shall proceed m for other map men~ents. ~e bo~d of supe~sors ~y app~6~e'~¢ prodded application ~ accord~ce M~ PD ~d general re~lmions, my modiScafions of PD or general regul~ions as prodded in section 8.5.4 as reco~fl by the commission, or may deny the application. .-,'.m~ pp i atio pmo d, bo a of han . approve the application pl~ ~ whole or m pa~ or may md~cate requ~ed changes, an~ such approval and requkements shall be binding in detemnations concem~g development pI~s. ~e development shall be in accord ~th site developmeh~'pta~s meeting the requirements of this ordin~ce as ~ecifically supplem~ted or modffi'~. the board of supe~isors in the pa~cular case. Modifications in the applicafion,~plm other application materials required by bo~d approval shall be submi~ed by the applicant to the director of plying phor to submission of ~e final site development' .... ~.. :7 :~.'-' 18-8-4 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE Attachment · ~'7'" Revised application plans shall be submitted within sixty (60) days o£ board approval or sUCh approval shall bc deemed null.and void. 8.5.6 FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND SUBDMSION PLATS ,, .: ,i-: 8.5.6.1 CONTENTS OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: SUBDMSION PLATS '''-' Unless modification is permitted by board of supervisors" action pursuant to 8.5.4 and 8.5.5, all site development plans shall comply with section 32.0 ordinance and all subdivision plats shall comply with Chapter 14 o£ thc 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: compliarice with site development plan or subdivision regulations applying at the t/me the lmSd 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 apl~i6~ plans may be permitted by the director of planning and community development 'u..pOn. finding that such variations are: generally in keeping with the spirit and concept..o.f..the approved application plans; in accordance with the comprehensive plan; :.~,and, accordance .with regulations currently in effect. Changes other than permitted:h..,e..r..e..',m. shall be made only by rezoning application. (Amended 9-9-92) 8.5.6.4 BUILDING PERMITS, GRADING PERMITS '!;:' ' '~4-. After PD designation, no building permit including special footings and foun.rh, ti0n permits shall be issued in sUch district prior to approval of site development p.l?n',s',o? subdivision plats for the development of the area in which such permits would apply. In the case of a subdivision plat, the d/rector of planning and community developme.p'tmay authorize issuance of a grading permit'for road construction upon approval of road...~lans by the director of engineering or the Virginia Department of Transportation as the-cas~ may be. (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 ordi~i' 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 [he analogous provisions of any predecessor ordinance, no site development pl..an.. ,or. subdivision plat shall be approved unless and until such application, includia, g transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps, studies and reports required.bY...~ thi.s ordinance, shall have been submitted and approved in accordance with this section. the case of any such PD district which has been heretofore developed 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 requirement for any further application. (Amended 7-16-86) "'*",", 18-8-5 Attachment S-5 jl COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM To: Michael Barnes, Planning From: Glenn Brooks, Engineering Subject: Holl.vmead 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 the grades in parking areas. Grades of up to 25% are sho~am in parking areas on the north side of the plan. The allowable grade is 5% in any direction. 3. Conceptual road profiles were not 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 appear 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 discussed 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. 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 facihties. 8. Grading is stitI 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. Albemarle County Planning Commission The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Tracey Hopper, Vice-Chairperson; Bill Edgerton; William Finley and Pete Craddock. Absent was Jared Loewenstein. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Michael Barnes, Senior Planner; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. 4:00 P.M. At City Hall, Michie Conference Room Joint Work Session with City Planning Commission on Improvements to the Hydraulic/250 Bypass Intersections of the US 29 Corridor. Call to Order and EStablish Quorum: Mr. Rieley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Rieley invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Approval of Planning Commission Minutes- January 28, 2003. Mr. Edgerton moved for' the approval of the. consent agenda. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (6:0) for approval of the minutes of January 28, 2003. ZMA 01-18 Hollymead Town Center, RegiOnal Service Area A (Siqn #74) - Request to rezone 65 acres from PA, Rural Areas to PD-MC., Planned Development- Mixed Commercial to allow for a shopping center. The property, described as' Tax Map 32, Parcels 42A, 42B, 46-5 and portions of 42C, 42D, 42E, 43, 43A, 44, 45 and 50, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Route 29 North approximately ~1/2 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 use. AND ZMA 01-19 Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Sign #87) - Request to rezone 24.7 acres from PA, Rural Areas and HC, Highway Commercial to PD-MC, Planned Development- Mixed Commercial to allow for a shopping center. AND SP 01-63 Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A~' - Request for special use permit to allow a drive-in window in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses permitted by special use permit in C-1, CO and HC districts. AND SP 01-64 Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B" - Request for special .use permit to allow a drive-in window in accordance with Section25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses permitted by special use permit in C-1, CO and HC districts. (Michael Barnes) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 Mr. Rieley stated that the .next item ZMA-01-18 was one of five public hearing items. He asked Mr. Barnes if his staff report would deal with all of these items at once or did he want to do them one at a time. Mr. Barnes stated that generally, he would deal with all of them as one. He stated that he planned on covering both applications in his presentation. Mr. Rieley suggested that they hear staff's presentation altogether and that he tell them what the distinctions are for ZMA-01-18 and ZMA-01-19 since they would hear each of those separately. He stated that then they would hear SP-01-63 and SP-01-64 with ZMA-01-19. He asked~that staff start out by giving them an overview. Mr. Barnes presented the staff report as outlined in the staff report. He stated that the town center is an area by Airport Road roughly to the north and Route 29 to the east. The other boundary is the Powell Creek boundary along the western side. He pointed out the location of Forest Lakes, the Hollymead Cemetery and the Hollymead Subdivision. For the area under consideration there are four rezoning requests that cover the majority of the town center. The area should include this one and then the other ones that have color around them. The ones under consideration tonight are ZMA-01-18, Area A and ZMA-01-19, Area B with the two special use permits. Area A is shown in red. Just recently in the past several weeks, Mr. Wood expanded the shaded area to include this area that is also surrounded by red. The Dierman Realty and Regency Center application is shown in yellow. The other two applications for Area C and Area D, which is the Virginia Land Company and the Kessler Group respectively, are not under consideration this evening. This town center was based on the Hollymead Town center Comprehension Plan Amendment that was passed in 2001. A lot of that plan revolved around this masterplan that was referenced by the Comprehensive Plan Amendment which is also called the Daggett and Grigg plan. The areas under consideration tonight roughly are Area A and Area B. The pink represents the mixed use-regional service area Due to technical problems, he switched over to the map from the slide presentation. The tan area that was referenced was the mixed-use community service, and the purple area was the high-density residential portion of the project. He excused himself for a few moments to deal with the technical problems. He pointed out the area of the town center that Mr. Wendell Wood was looking at. Mr. Wood has submitted two application plans to cover this area. The portion that the Commission previously considered was this portion down here with the town center area, which you see in this moredetailed area. The area that was most recently added to the application by Mr. Wood was done because some of the requests that the Planning Commission had for the entire area of the town center to be considered at one time. The remaining portion of the application plan governed it. The Dierman portion is what you see on the plan behind Mr. Rieley. Both this section Area B and Area A are essentially shopping center areas almost completelY retail both in the range of 250,000 square feet plus. The remaining portion of Mr. Wood's property that is under consideration tonight is suppose to be the mixed use zone or the center of the town center with a mixture of residential and retail uses on a multi-floor plan. The specificity on the two plans that are behind Mr. Rieley is somewhat lacking in this plan. Particularly on large rezoning applications like-this, the Commission normally requires a certain level of detail. That is the question that is before the Commission tonight. If the Commission so chooses to allow this application to come back at a later date, they need to define whether the level of detail that is shown here needs to be something more in line with that and whether the generalness of this plan is suitable to meet their needs. The staff looked at these plans for their conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Model, the grading, how the uses work within the site, and how the uses are integrated with each other and with traffic. He noted that he would not get into the details of-all of that since they have had several work sessions to discuss that. Also the staff report covered much of that. The other element of this analysis was the traffic 'study. The traffic study came back recommending 4 additional lanes along Route.29 from the south fork of the Rivanna River to just north of Airport Road. It also suggested another 3 lanes between the South Fork and Rio Road. Part of the improvements in the area that it recommended and depended upon was the improvements that VDOT will be doing on Airport Road. The study, also suggested signalizing the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 2 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 intersection of Proffit Road and Route 20 and the intersection of Eadysville Road and Dickerson Road. The study suggested an additional turn lane at the Rock Store intersection and another one at the intersection of Earlysville Road and Wo0dsdale Road with an added light~ and an additional lane at Route' 606 in Earlysville. At this time the applicant has provided proffers to the County for Area B, but proffers have not been provided for Area A. The proffers are in your package as Attachment 05. The proffers essentially deal with transportation improvements that the applicant is going to make. This is the applicant for Area B. The improvements are essentially the additional turning lanes at the intersections on Route 29, some of the improvements internal to the site and the new stop light at the cemetery entrance to the project. With that he would just leave that there and take any questions. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Barnes. Mr. Edgerton stated that the large drawing behind him was consistent with the one contained in their packet. He asked which plan they were reviewing since the layout of the other drawing was considerably different. He pointed out particularly in Mr. Wood's area. Mr. Barnes stated that the applicant felt very strongly that they wanted to provide the best representation. Mr. Dierman, of Dierman Realty for Area B, wants essentially their portion of the shopping center to be COnsidered tonight. That is the part shown above that drawing. He asked that the Commission disregard the area that Mr. Wood is talking about in that plan. They received that plan in the middle of last week and staff has not had time to review that. That plan does provide more detail in the layout, but the heart of it was the amount of commitment to that plan and how those details actually play out that gives staff some concern. Ms. Hopper asked to comment on the differences between the two plans. She stated that informally she has seen that plan float around after some of meetings about the Hollymead Town Center. She noticed immediately that it was not part of the application that was before them tonight. She stated that it did not look like there were many changes at all. What they were seeing tonight is not very different from what they saw the last time, while that application looks different insome significant ways. Mr. Barnes stated that it still comes back that it does show a little more parking than they have and it has deleted some of the buildings that are on there. He pointed out that he probably should not have allowed .that drawing to go up tonight. The drawing still does not, in staff's opinion, provide the necessary information in how many floors are in those buildings, what are the uses in those buildings and what kind of commitment is going with that plan. The plan does provide you with the parking fields associated with some of those uses. Mr. Craddock asked what the other plan was. Mr. Barnes pointed out that was the grading plan that they have discussed previously and already provided some analysis for. The Engineering Department has provided Attachment S, which was the last thing before the index in your report on page 87. Mr. Finley asked if this plan was the one they should disregard, and Mr. Barnes stated that was correct. Mr. Barnes noted that .between Route 29 and Area B was the section under consideration tonight. He recommended that the Commission base their decisions on the uppertwo plans tonight. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions-for Mr. Barnes. He pointed out that this was staff's overview. He stated .that ZMA-01-18 would be considered separately since it was a separate applicant before the Commission. He stated that they would then consider ZMA-01-19 and the two special use permits. They would receive public comment all at one time and then take separate actions. He asked Mr. Kamptner if that would be adequate. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 3 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMI'I-I'ED APRIL 1, 2003 Mr. Kamptner suggested that they hear the rezoning public hearings separately and then the special use permits together with separate actions. Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission would first deal with ZMA-01-18.' For the record, he asked Mr. Barnes for his recommendation on this. Mr. Barnes stated that after reviewing the two application plans for ZMA-01-18, staff believes that there are too many outstanding or unfavorable items associated with the request. Staff has requested additional information and changes to help bring this project into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has declined at this time. Instead, the applicant has requested 'that the public hearing proceed. Therefore, staff cannot recommend approval of ZMA-01-18. He pointed out that portion of the unfavorable items are listed in the previous three pages. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for Mr. Barnes or other staff. Mr. Finley stated that on page 15, you state that for these reasons staff does not believe that there is a public need or justification for this proposal atthis time for this location on Route 29. He asked if that was the consensus of the staff. Mr. Barnes stated that he prepares a draft of the staff report, which is reviewed by both the Director of Planning & Community Development as well as the Chief of Community Development prior submitting the report to the Commission. Mr. Finley stated that there were a number of items that looked like they could be worked out rather easily. He asked why these issues are not worked out in advance, by planning staff and engl neers. Mr. Barnes stated that staff has tried many times to convey the importance of that not only at the staff level, but also at the Commission level. He stated that staff was concerned if it was something not considered at this stage that it would not be a part of the ultimate project. Mr. Benish noted that for a rezoning this information has to be identified on a plan or stated 'in the proffer. The complete packet does not satisfy staff that there is actually a commitment provided to address these types of items. He pointed out that time could address them, but they were requested to move forward with the public hearing with what we have. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was intrigued on page 14 with the physical impact statement on the middle of the page. He stated that he was surprised that there appears to be no factor for the infrastructure co~t that the County will suffer because of the traffic impacts from this project. He asked if that was something that they should consider. Mr. Barnes stated that his understanding was that infrastructure costs are factored into the model. However, when you have infrastructure costs of this scale primarily for the transportation infrastructure, that model will probably not accurately pick that up. Mr. Edgerton stated that the numbers were huge for what needs to be done. He pointed out that there was a limited amount of help offered from the developer. He suggested that they be mindful of that when they look at the cost of the physical impact. Mr. Benish stated that the physical impact model does not-look at specific demands or needs.' It looks at unit cost needs based on multiPliers of impact. He stated that you tend to lose on a project by project basis some scale of actual impact. There are times when it ooes not accurately pick up all of those things. The physical impact gives you a bigger picture of what happens with the economy with this type of development. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 4 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMI'I-rED APRIL 1, 2003 Ms. Hopper stated that on:page 14, regarding the physical impact, it says that the County would be better off a pproving this. She asked what time period they were referring to. Mr. Barnes stated that his understanding of how the model works is that you take what is .on the property now and the impact cost it has to the County. Essentially, there are two homes on the property right now. The potential of the property would be 40 homes with the current zoning on the property. They would build out in 2005 only the area in this section for the Shopping Center. He pointed out that they did not have enough information on the uses at the top. Mr. Kamptner referred to page 71, attachment M25 Mr. Edgerton pointed out that it was for ten years. Mr. Barnes stated that physical impact adds the costs up over the time period of ten years. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for Mr. Barnes. Since there were none, he opened up the public hearing on ZMA-01-18, United Land Corporation proposal for Area A. He asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Wendell Wood, stated that the request for ZMA-01-18 had been recently expanded to include Parcel E. He noted that the Commissioners had asked to see his commitment on the balance of the property that he owned. They increased that to commit to the overall road system and layout as seen on the wall. He pointed out that he worked with staff for guidance to tell him how to do that. This is one of the forms that they were committed to. They: would proffer to that plan and would commit to the densities that would be developed at an 85 percent residential, and 15 - 20 percent retail office. He explained that they took it into the maximum intensification that the Commission asked for over a period of years. He felt that showed the Commission the willingness on their part to commit to do what that plan says. Mr. Barnes would probably like to see a plan submitted like the one submitted on parcel B, that is more architectural and shows the exact structures. He stated that he did not know how they could do that other than with the generalization of what they have.. There is noway that he would know who that tenant would be ten years from now. He pointed out that staff has control over that in their site plan review. The lots would probably not be sold to one person. Therefore, that person might bring in block A that is right behind the Giant. Then he has to submit a detailed site plan that would conform to this general plan that they have given them that locks them into the road network and the continuity of the plan. All of the developers have agreed on the continuity of this plan that includes streetlights, signage, park benches, park areas, etc. He stated that he did this at their request to commit that they were willing todo that. He stated that if staff has a better way for him to achieve that, then he would be willing to do that. At this time, he did not know what he would put in the area behind the stores because it depends on today's market place. But, the plan will be like what is al'ready shown on this plan. It will be the building as shown on the plan, but he did not know who the tenants were. He noted that they knew right up front that you can't bring a site. plan in if it does not conform to this plan. But again, if staff has a better way to achieve it, then he was open for suggestions. He felt that this plan commits Parcel E. If staff does not feel that this plan does that, then they were willing to do that. They were willing to bind by this plan. He pointed out that he could not go into the exact details of the architecture since he only has the general architectural design that would go in. He felt that Mr. Barnes wanted him to be specific in who was going to be there, which was a little hard to do since it was a 5 to 10 year project. He noted that this would be done in phases. He felt that Parcel B has been done in that type of detail. He stated that he understood that this was not the final detailed plan. He pointed out that they would have to come back before the Commission with the site plan regardless of what the zoning is. So if they have this as an underlying masterplan, then they .would follow up with a site plan .for that area. It will probably come to you at a future.date per block. He noted that it was 400,000 square feet and 800 dwelling units that probably will not be submitted'to the Commission as one plan. The plan has to be cohesive ano show the overall concept that everyone has to tie into. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 5 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 Mr. Thomas stated that he remembered asking only for the road plan or the grid plan on that particular parcel. Mr. Wood stated that he was willing to give a little bit more than that since' he was willing to commit to the layouts. Mr. Thomas requested to be able to ask Mr. Wood some questions. He asked Mr. Wood if he has worked on any of the items listed in the staff report as lacking on the plan. Mr. Wood stated that he was not sure what he talking about. Mr. Thomas referred to page 16, number 2b. Mr. Barnes stated that the complexity of the town center is immense. For clarification, he noted that the area outlined in green was referred to as the first application plan. He stated that everything that was listed under number 2 relates to the first application plan. Everything listed under number 3 refers to the second application plan that is outlined in blue on'the screen. He noted that parcel E was recently added to the application. He stated that the way that this was set up was that when you see the first point that staff is talking about it refers to the two application plans with varying degrees of specificity. Staff is worried about administering and enforcing those at the site plan stage. The second points are things that staff found to be unfavorable with the shopping center portion' or the first application portion that was originally considered and fall under number 2 on page 16. These are still things that staff finds lacking from the plan'sdesign and/or details that should be added. Mr. Thomas asked if these were things that Mr. Wood is working on and would be willing to provide in the plan. Mr. Wood stated yes, noting that what they have done now is to show the general plan. The difference between Areas A and B, for example, is that they have tenants for Area B. They know exactly where Target will go. Therefore, the project would not be all done at one time. He noted that this is the first phase, and that he was trying to give them what he was willing to commit to. They were willing to commit to A, but he has not given them the exact parking or the exact bike lanes because Area A may need to come back for a final site plan. They don't know who will go into each space. A potential tenant might like a particular space, but not the particular configUration since it might not meet their design. Then, that plan would have to come back to you. He noted that he was trying to give them a comfort level that he thought that they had asked him to lock into. He stated that they were willing to lock into this at this stage. Then when they have a tenant.for that particular building and for those stores, then he will come back to the Commission in the same context that B is before you tonight. He noted that staff had asked him to go a step forward and submit those things to .them which was what he was trying to do. He pointed out that he did not know any other way to do it than what they have done. They will commit at this level knowing that the Commission has another shot at it when they bring in a final site plan. If the Commission does not like this approach, then they need to give him another approach to use. He acknowledged that their concern was that they wanted, to make sure that this is kept as a town center. Mr. Finley asked if the stormwater basin on Powell Creek serves Parcel B. Mr. Wood stated that it did because the grading plans for A, B, and a great deal of E flows down into this basin. That basin will be designed and built so that part of it will be done. The part which will be done now will cover the surface area orA at a later date; That part has to be done today in connection with B. The grading plan shows the regional water detention. He stated that part of B's detention; for example, goes into the pond at the intersection of Forest Lakes. The big ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 pond down to the left covers Parcel A which will not be built at this time, but that is part of the regional plan. He pointed out that the Commission has a site plan that shows all of that. Mr. Finley stated that when a stormwater basin approaches on the buffer for a creek, you've advised us that this is a problem, He asked if this must be outside of the 100 feet. Mr. Wood stated that they have already had the Wetlands Board out on the site. They have proposed a mitigation plan to resolve the encroachment, which has been submitted to the State Water Control Board. If they think the encroachment can't be done, then they will not give you a permit. He pointed out that area already has sewer going through it. Therefore, there is already an encroachment there. But, that is a permit that we have to get approved and if we can't proof that it can be done with their recommendations, then it might have to be narrowed and moved. Mr. Finley asked if they proposed a mitigation plan. Mr. Wood stated that he believed that he had received one today, but that there was an engineer here who could answer that. There is a permit application before them. To 'the best of his knowleage, he stated that they made a recommendation as to the .mitigati0n involved to put the stormwater there. They did agree that their proposed location was the best place for it. Mr. Finley stated that his permit would be based on meeting their requirements for mitigation. Mr. Wood stated that they could not do it without that. Ms. Hopper asked Mr. Kamptner if a rezoning was passed, can an applicant come back and amend the rezoning to renegotiate the proffers. Mr. Kamptner stated that proffers could be amended and the application plan can be amended in the planned development district. He pointed out that both of those are possible. Ms. Hopper stated that hearing that it seems that rezonings, as you know, typically are very specific because of the nature of the great changes in the rezoning. She noted that.he talked about the fact that you don't have specific applicants and tenants who are looking at these parcels right now. That is a huge area.of land. Knowing the details that are generally required in a rezoning, could you work this through and provide the details and proffer those to address what is needed in a rezoning or the specificity that is required n a rezoning. Then if you have a tenant that needs changes, you could always come back and ask for an amendment of the proffer. She asked if that was something he would consider. Mr. Wood noted that it was a very expensive process. For example, to date on parcel B they have spent over a million dollars. It is a little tough to cover, but they knew that they had tenants being the Target and the Giant. It will be a little bit uneconomical on A or E to go back and lay out an exact plan. He noted that the tenants drive the market., It is really not something that they have the flexibility of doing. They can say that that does not fit their plan and it does not work. He expressed concerns over paying for designing the buildings before finding the tenants since he would likely end up having ,to pay again for' redesigning them. He asked how he could do that without making it economically prohibited to do,a final site plan and then having to come back in to do another one. Ms. Hopper stated the level of detail was almost like an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It was more like the specificity of the CPA rather than like the specificity of the rezoning. She pointed out that they did not have enough details to pass a rezoning on this since it was almost more like a more specific CPA. Mr. Wood stated that this was as close as' he knew how to get there. He pointed out if they could tell him a different way to get there that he was willing to do it, short of submitting final site plans. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 7 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 He noted that this was a 20-year project and he did not know what would go in the middle'section 15 years from now. Ms. Hopper pointed out that number 6 on page 17 states, ' the existing transportation infrastructure will not support the development proposed for the entire town center. The applicant has neither offered to offset the negative traffic impacts associated with this proposal nor has he demonstrated that this portion of the overall town center could be supported by' the existing road network in the absence of the other proposals or in advance of significant public sector improvements to the road network." She stated that this was the most significant issue with this application. Regarding the VDOT letter that was addressed that went into the more specifics, she asked what would be his response to that concern. Mr. Wood stated that the proffers that have been made are joint proffers. On parcel A, they have a ratio of how they are splitting that. It was written up so that they are getting all of the credit for it. He stated that there is a ratio of what they are sharing in the costs for because there was road frontage on Route 29. Those proffers where it states none with A, which is technically correct in the report, but they have an agreement amongst themselves of how that is going to be distributed. He stated that Parcel A and the other parts are contributing to these road costs. Ms. Hopper asked if he was willing to contribute more if that was necessary. Mr. Wood stated that would be addressed later since the report is for the ultimate build-out of the entire 180 acres and not just what you have before you tonight. There are experts present that address the amount of traffic that is being generated by each portion. That is what the traffic study will show you since it covers the entire build-out. He pointed out from his standpoint; this has been before the Commission for the last four years. He stated that it looked like theY have good control over what they could do. Mr. Thomas stated that it was in the recommended actions, on the bottom of page 17, that Mr. Wood declined to provide some requested information to staff in lieu of bringing it or~ to the public hearing. He asked Mr. Wood if he could provide the additional information and changes to help bring the project in'conformity with theCom prehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wood stated that he could. He asked that they show him how to do that without presenting a final site plan. Mr. Benish stated that at a site plan level they were compelled to adopt anything that meets the minimum requirements of our ordinance. He noted that anything in addition to the minimum requirements would be required of the applicant to be part of the rezoning process. What they were trying to do in this rezoning process is to establish what the expectations are based on the impact of this development with what has been identified in the Community Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Plans to be needed in this area to support the build out. They are in the process of establishing what those needs are for the rezoning process. The rezoning process should identify those items that the applicant is willing to provide and whether we feel those are satisfactory to meet the needs of this project. The Commission will have a second crack at anything that is rezoned. Usually anything that is rezoned goes through the site plan and subdivision process. What you can require in that site plan and subdivision process, unless established in the rezoning, is only the minimum requirements of our ordinance. Our ordinance does not require bus stops to be placed on a site. It does not require landscaping beyond the minimum landscaping that is required. What staff has done, based on our long work during the work session process, is decide what they expect this community area to develop as. Staff is working with the applicant on a process to achieve that, but at this point in time they don't have that full information. Therefore, going to public hearing at this point in time, staff feels that there are deficiencies in the plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- MARCH 11, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 Mr. Wood stated that they were willing to do that, but it becomes a question of needing some guidance in how to achieve that. If it was at a minimum, he felt that they could do that. He questioned howhe could achieve a final design on something that they don't have a tenant for. Mr. Rieley asked if anyone had additional questions for Mr. Wood. There being none, he opened the public hearing. He asked Mr. Barnes to point out on the plan the area that is specifically requested in this proposal.. He pointed out that a separate public hearing would be held for the second rezoning and the two special use permits before them. Mr. Barnes stated that the area outlined in red on the plan is the area that is requested under the first application, ZMA-01-18, Area A. Mr. Rieley asked for public input. Tony Seaman, resident of the area for thirty years, stated that everyone wants to see improvements to the community in education, road improvements and more community services. He noted that due to the economical problems in our government, we need more revenues to be able to finance these types of things. The best way to do that is through an expanded tax base. From a professional standpoint, he has been in the banking business for 22 years, of which the last 15 years has been in commercial real estate. He pointed out that he has been involved in a number of these projects and that Mr. Wood still has a lot of hurdles to cross with the banking industry. He stated that this was a fantastic project and he was 100 percent for the proposal of both tracts A and B. He feltthat the site plan was ample opportunity to get involved in the details and make sure that certain things happen. Mr. Bobby McCauley, resident of Charlottesville, spoke in favor of Mr. Wood's project. He stated that Mr. Wood was willing to work with the COunty to make sure that the project was beneficial to the community and everyone involved. Forest Hirer stated that he was primarily interested in Area B. Bill Stokes stated that he was primarily interested in Area B. Franklin Mickie stated that he interviewed for the Planning Commission with Mr. Martin when the. position for Rivanna District became available last time. He asked me why it was important to me. to be on the Planning Commission. My answer to him was that I wanted Albemarle County to remain a place where my children would like to stay. He pointed out that he moved away from Long Island, New York because the lifestyle had changed 'so drastically since his childhood. Development in Long Island created clogged streets and the inability to distinguish between one town and the next. He feared that would happen here. He noted that his other concern was to protect the Entrance Corridors to Albemarle County, specifically Route 29 North because it was the first impression that people are going to get. Prohibiting construction is unrealistic. But what they can control is the appearance of the buildings. He stated that he saw visions of the Albemarle Town Center publicized years ago and now he saw aspectS of it in this plan. He commended the developers for that which includes the pedestrian friendly use and the multiple uses. Unfortunately, he saw shopping areas that were undistinguishable from other shopping centers in our region and elsewhere in the Country. That was what he feared. The land configuration was something else that they could control here. He suggeSted that they lower the parcel because the multi-story buildings on that ridge will be dominant for the entire region. He suggested that they create a buffer along the roadway, He noted that he found no need for this project due to the vacant businesses in the area. He felt that the job of this Commission was to protect the lifestyle of the people of this County. Josh Freeman stated that he Was primarily concerned with Area B. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- MARCH 1'1,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 9 Tom Loach, resident of Albemarle County, stated that regarding the point made about the revenue generation from the development, he felt if that were true then Fairfax and other northern areas would be paying their residents to live there. He noted that was not the case because those areas were feeling the economic crunch as well. During Mr. Barne's review of the Neighborhood Model, you find that this development fails on pedestrian orientation, neighborho°d friendly streets, interconnective streets, parks and open space, neighborhood centers, building spaces at human scale, and relegated parking. He agreed with Ms. Hopper that the town center would generate significantly more traffic than the current road infrastructure can manage, and the County and VDOT do not have the revenue to construct the improvements as recommended by the application's traffic at this time. The improvements proposed bythe applicant are negligible and inadequate to support traffic generated in neither Phase 1 or 2. He feared that the needs of his neighborhood would take second fiddle to when the extra four lanes are needed on Route 29. Unless there is a phasing plan for this to meet those infrastructure needs, he would recommend denial of the project. Joseph Boo stated that he has a small business across the street from Forest Lakes called ATR Computers, which was located in Seminole Square Shopping Center. He pointed out that he was speaking for all of. the small business owners in that strip in that they simply cannot wait for this sho pping center. Neil'Harris, resident of Albemarle County, stated that he had lived in southern California and northern Virginia and knew that growth cannot be stopped.- He suggested that the County allow this development in order to grow the tax base and keep it locally. That is ultimately what will keep the property taxes lower and how they manage the future growth. He supported the development. Steve Dello stated that he was primarily concerned with Area B. Mr. Hussey stated that he was primarily concerned with Area B. Mr. Rieley noted that finished up the persons listed on the sign-up sheet. He asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak. Charlie Tractor noted concern with the fact that no impact study has been done on the schools and how this development would affect which school the' children would attend. The developer has offered no contributions to the creation of the facilities, even though his development will generate part of the needs for the facilities. He recommended that Mr. Wood meets with the community and discusses his plans. Timothy Holden, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated that Mr. Wood and his partners are respected investors and citizens in this community. The project that they propose for the most part meets with the spirit and the letter of the direction that this County has said that it wants its developers to go. That iS.to design projects in the growth area, use mixed- use models and enhance the environment that that we have here. That has been done in this project. This project creates an enormous opportunity to gain some economic opportunities, as well as the tax base. On behalf of himself and many members of the 1,200 member Chamber of Commerce, he echoed what you have heard tonight that this is a project that deserves your consideration and your approval because they have done what you have asked them to do. There may be some details that you need to work out, but this group of investors has brought the proposal this far and they deserve your favorable approval. Donald Lawson, resident of area for 68 years, stated that in the past several years Albemarle County has lost a lot of businesses and as a result of that a lot of tax base. He stated that the people of Albemarle County need work. Albemarle County.government has turned down a lot of businesses. He noted concern over the fact that lower income families have to move to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 10 surrounding areas. He asked that they approve this plan to increase the jobs in the area and the tax base. Jeff Werner, representative of Piedmont Environmental Council, stated that last week the Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT held a public hearing '~n this building to discuss, among other things, the solution to local traffic issues on 29 North. One thing that is clear .is that there is little if any available state funding for improvements to 29 corridor in the near future. The recommended transportation improvements to facilitate these proposed rezonings - recommendations reiected by both County and VDOT staff as inadequate- are estimated in excess of $100-million. We have no idea when they might get implemented or who will pay. It's time to plan BEFORE'we build. It's time to get the adequate infrastructure in place BEFORE the development, not after. Therefore, it is the position of the PEC that UNTIL the County and State have developed and begun implementation of a meaningful Regional Transportation Plan, these rezoning request should be denied; (A copy of Mr. Werner's' presentation is attached.) Ann Malleck stated that she was speaking for Joe Rinkevich who is president of Earlysville Area Residents' League and is out of town. She heartily endorsed the recommendation of the Planning staff to deny the rezoning requests of ZMA-01-18 and 19 because of their effect on the transportation system in Eadysville and the local environment. She asked that they not allow this development until the infrastructure improvements are in place. (A copy of Ms. Mallek's presentation is attached.) Chuck Pollard, Project Leader for Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that they strongly support the concept of the Hollymead Town Center and its purpose of creating a vibrant mixed use, pedestrian friendly environment that is appropriately scaled and easily accessible and thoughtfully designed. One of the many benefits of this development.concept is that if it was done properly that you can minimize the traffic that is generated by-being accessible to multiple transportation alternatives or by a single auto trip instead of multiple auto trips. Therefore, the development of a true town center could effectively lower the need for construction of new roads, and the widening of the existing ones in the area of Route 29 North Corridor. As staff points out, there are. numerous failures of this proposal to conform to the Neighborhood Model. The County staff and VDOT recognize that this proposal with have tremendous impacts on this region's transportation network generating more traffic than our roads can handle. There is no money in site at the state and local level to pay for a fraction of the improvements that would even begin to help alleviate the congestion that this project would cause. Despite what the physical impact summarizes, there is also a statement that staff has not assessed the impact on the schools. He felt that this increased the need for a by-pass of which they have fought very hard to stop. He asked that they not create a traffic n~ghtmare for the County. He asked that they approve the staff's recommendation in this request and deny this request. Bill King, native of Albemarle County, stated that he has worked on the Route 29 Corridor for the last 30 years. He stated that apparently there is no great traffic problem because they have not done any thing about the by-pasS for the past 25 years. He felt that the town center would be a benefit and would alleviate some of the traffic on Route 29. He stated that he works in Ruckersville and d id not feel that there is a traffic problem. He supported Mr. Wood's project and asked for a favorable vote. Eleanor M. Breeden, resident of Forest Springs Park, stated that they need this project because currently they have to come all the way into town to shop. She stated that many of the residents in Forest Springs Park are in favor of this. She asked that the Commission vote in favor of the request because they would love to have a Target in this area. Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak on ZMA-01-18. He asked Mr. Wood if he had any additional comments. Mr. Wood stated that he had nothing further to add, but would answer any questions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 11 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Finley stated that the majority of the issues dealt with the traffic issues and that there was no money to do anything about it. Mr. Thomas stated that the project has come a long ways. He stated that it bothered him about the details and that Mr. Wood declined to provide the information that the Planning staff asked for. He asked Mr. Barnes to provide the specifics of what Mr. Wood declined to give. Mr. Barnes stated that part of the specifics relating to the portion that they refer to as the second application plan, as well as the general plan, were missing. The more specific plan that they did receive for the first application plan, aside from some of the form questions, that they did not go through the same level of detail that they did on Area B. Part of the way the town center was set up was that it was suppose to rely heavily on an infill strategy to get you to a higher density and a higher intensity use of the land at the time. Staff sees a lot of those things lacking in this plan. Many of the items that would be requested are in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, which you see on page 843 of your report. Those items particularly in section J that are missing includes an application showing general road alignments, proposed right-of-ways, sidewalks, bicycle & pedestrian ways, general water and sewer, stormwater drainage layout, general parking and loading areas. He noted that they have some of that, but a lot of that is missing. That is all of the information that they would expect on an application plan. The fear that they have is that when they get to the site plan stage, that those elements won't necessarily be provided' as part of the plan. Because of the nebulous nature of many aspects of this plan, it opens up the need for interpretation with the site plan and they don't have the backing or specificity in the site plan to require it as part of the zoning plan. He pointed out that this concept of the town center' did start with the Planning Commission and not with an application that was in response to a theatre proposal that was out in that area. One of the expectations from the Commission was that the overall town center would be a mixed-use development that would mix residential with commercial. As this development breaks out in components, they have components that are not mixed, but is dependent on the whole area that is going to provide that mixed-use multiple purpose office, residential and retail mix. That is part of the more generalized area and they don't have any specificity that there is going to be an assurance at this time that when that area does develop that it will develop as a mixed-use development. In the end as they take this piece by piece, they may end up by the time the last p~ece comes through of not having any mixed-use at all. Again, the applicant has worked with staff and has shown some progress in providing us a picture of what that will be and has indicated some commitments. But they don't have anything fundamentally in front of us that commits that range in the mix of uses. In terms of the transportation impact, they have identified the deficiency of the system and there are different ways to handle that. The development can be phased to mitigate the impact incrementally to that system until funding for ~mprovements can be established and put in place. No phasing plan has been submitted that would suggest a way to phase this development in any sort of way. The request before the Commission is for full approval of all of those sites. Staff cannot condition that in a rezoning. They have to respond to an offer to do that. Mr. Thomas stated that Ms. Hopper had suggested that they come back and get an amendment later if he presented something different from the conceptual plan. Ms. Hopper stated that if the right degree of specificity were met now, which was not in the plan that was before them, it would treat the request truly like a rezoning. She noted that this proposal does not look like a rezoning. With that commitment, staff could have some teeth when it came to site plan review time, which would make a lot more sense. Right_now they have-a plan that is so vague that at the site plan level there would be no way to implement it. She asked that they take a look at the proffers, which are on page 73 of the packet, with which Mr. Wood said that he was joining in those proffers. These proffers are so incredibly general that you could drive a truck ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 12 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 through them. The reference to specificity is to the application plan, which is a picture, and then there is some general language about the improvements to the roads. The proffers have lots of prOblems and do not look like proffers at the rezoning level for approval. She stated that they would be irresponsible to pass something with this vagueness. She felt that Mr. Wood has tried hard to be responsive to their concerns, and he has admitted that he does not have a tenant and has not worked this up like a rezoning. She stated that tax base was not their area because they were planning and land use. Regarding traffic infrastructure, it is correct that this will not be built out for a very long time. The commitments in the proffers will have to include commitments throughoUt that build out period. The amount of money will be large to support this. She noted that it was great that the public has come out and participated in this process. At the same time looking perceptively at this, it would be nice to have a Target in town. But to have the roads bogged down according to VDOT's assessment, there ~s no way that they can approve this. Mr. Thomas stated that VDOT's assessment of roadways is usually overkill. Mr. Edgerton stated that he was trying to;figure out what drawing is being referenced. He pointed out that it was confusing to try to figure out what Mr. Wood would be binded to because of the large number of plans, He pointed out that there were quite a few inconsistencies. Mr. Barnes pointed out the current plan that covered everything that was not covered by the other plans was submitted for Areas B, C and D. Mr. Edgerton concurred with Ms. Hopper's statements about the traffic issues. He stated that he was not convinced that by approving this that they would be solving their economic problems. The proposal and plan as submitted are too vague to be considered-in a legitimate way as a rezoning. Therefore, he was unable to support the proposal. Mr. Finley disagreed with Ms. Hopper in that development does not involve the economy, jobs and tax base. Mr. Craddock stated that the transportation issues are very significant. He pointed out that they were not sure what they are looking at. There are so many pictures up here that if something looks like what is inside the blue area; he would say that is a good idea and what we are looking for. The area in lime green is a typical shopping center that they see everywhere. He pointed out that he was not sure if they were being bound by any of them because of the number of plans. He stated that he was confused on which plan was the actual one. Not knowing what he was voting on he would vote no. Mr. Thomas questioned if they were expecting all parcels to have mixed-use. Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think that the CPA was ever conceived that way or did he think it would be fair to evaluate it that way. Mr. Barnes apologized for the confusing nature of this. He pointed out the plan behind Ms. Hopper was the first application plan for ZMA-01-18. The second one is the area that is more general in nature, and the essential question is that he is not willing to give a higher degree of specificity because he does not have anything tied down for it. He asked if that was enough detail for the Commission. He pointed out that both plans are portions of this application. Mr. Rieley commended Mr. Woodfor getting the upper portion as far along as it is. If they were to try to address the inadequacy of the transportation infrastructure to handle this by phasing this project in, that piece would make the most sense to begin with. He felt that staffwas quite right to point out the lack of specificity. Mr. Wood asked what he was to do to fix this. That is a good and fair question for a work session. It is not a good question at a public hearing for a rezoning. He felt that a good number.of those questions were listed in the staff report. He stated that he was grateful and enthusiastic about the work that has been done on that section. He hoped to see it ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING' COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 13 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 moved forward and work with it as a component of this Comprehensive Plan, but there is not enough specificity in it to support it. He agreed with Mr, Craddock about the lime colored portion of the plan. He stated that if it 'were not for the traffic impact, he would probably support it. The applicant has been responsive to the Commission's concerns: The traffic impact as presented by the traffic stuay is way more than can be accommodated on the existing'roadway and it is way more than anyone has the money to pay for in either the private or public sector. He agreed with Ms. Hopper that in its current configuration this is. not supportable. Mr. Rieley pointed out that they have to act on what is before the Commission, which was the area shown in red with no proposed phasing. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Wood if he would provide the degree of specificity that is needed. Mr. Wood stated yes, and that he would like to try again to meet with the staff and the Commission to try to see if they can get to the comfort level that was being requested. He stated that he was willing to try to do that again. He asked for a deferral. He asked for everybody's consideration in recognizing his dilemma of trying to do detailed planning that may be 15 years in the future. He stated that he-would give it his best shot to work. with 'them to try to arrive at something. Mr. Rieley stated that the applicant would need to request indefinite deferral in order to allow the time to work out the issues. Mr. Cilimberg stated that an indefinite deferral would require readvertising, but that to pick a date at this time would be difficult. Mr. Rieley asked if that was agreeable to Mr. Wood. Mr. Wood stated that he would try to do whatever they requested of him. Mr. Finley moved to approve the applicant's request' for indefinite deferral of ZMA-01~18, Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area A. Ms. Hopper seconded the .motion. The motion carried unanimously (6:0). (Loewenstein - absent) The Planning Commission took a 15-minute break at 8:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. ZMA 01-19 Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B (Sign #87) - Request to rezone 24.7 acres from PA, Rural Areas and HC, Highway Commercial to PD-MC, Planned Development- Mixed Commercial to allow for a shopping"center. (Michael Barnes) Mr. Rieley stated that ZMA-01-19, Hollymead Town Center, Area B, was now before the Commission. There are two special use permits attached to that, each of which was for a drive- in. He asked for the staff report and the comments from the public on all three of .those. He noted that the Commission would take separate actions on each of those items. Mr. Barnes stated that in the staff report on pages 28, 29 and 30, it lists the .reasons that are favorable and unfavorable for this particular development. The major site design details have been worked through at a previous work session. There are a few remaining smaller ones that may have been a concern of the Commission most noticeably at the intersection of Main Street and the access road in the upper portion of the site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 14 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 There was some question about how that area was to be treated. At the moment, that was the small Pocket Park that was in the rear of the loading dock area that staff has some concerns about. He pointed out that he was concerned with the side sidewalk treatment in this area. He stated that if there were other details that the Commission would like to discuss, he would be happy to pull them out and discuss them in more detail. The biggest problem with this particular application is the one that is common with the rest of them and that is the traffic issues. At this time the proffers that have been provided for this application are very similar in nature as to what could be requested and required to a site plan process. This would include the internal access roads that provide access into the site itself. At this time, staff made a recommendation on the rezoning which was that they still believe that there are outstanding unfavorable items associated with the request, and therefore staff cannot recommend approval at this time. As far .as the special use permit applications, this particular plan shows two uses here for a retail or bank use at this location and a restaurant use in the other location. He assumed that it would be a fast- food restaurant in that location. The ARB reviewed a plan for this area previously and the plan has changed. They reviewed the one you saw at the last work session, which was this portion of the plan. There is a change in both plans in the way the uses are organized along the Entrance Corridor. The ARB has not provided overview comments, which is not a requirement but has been requested by the Planning Commission previously. They have not reviewed these two in light of the recent changes. We did provide you with comments from the ARB. At that time they did review some elevations for the special use permits. They recommended that they could approve the bank, but that the fast-food drive-in had too many outstanding details at that time. He cautioned the Commission that since staff was not recommending approval of the rezoning, if they choose to adopt that recommendation for approval of the special use permits that they recognize that the zoning would not be in place for the special use permit. Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for Mr. Barnes. Mr. Thomas stated that on page 29 under number ld, it states that there shall be no pedestrian linkage across 29 to the residential to the east. He asked what did the Comp Plan call for and how is this to be accomplished. Mr. Barnes stated that the Commission was looking for linkages between the residential areas on the other side to the toWn center. This has been attached to this application, as well as the others, because .none of them have satisfactorily resolved how this pedestrian linkage would be created between the residential.area and the town center. Mr. Thomas pointed out that the idea of a tunnel came up. Mr. Barnes stated that it could possibly be done. The Comprehensive Plan shows a greenway trail coming along Powell Creek and up from the Hollymead Lake to Route 29. The CPA picks up the greenway trail and it follows Powell Creek. That might be a location for something like that. The Comp Plan also called for graded separated interchanges, which was part of the Phase 3 of the traffic study. Staff has not been able to complete the review of that portion of the traffic study. That was supposed to be taken care of in the traffic study. They have not come into resolution on that. Mr. Thomas stated that on f,'a single poorly designed fully situated green space is provided within the shopping center. Mr. Rieley pointed out that was the one abutting the service area. Mr. Thomas asked staff to elaborate on that a little bit. Mr. Barnes stated that the plan calls for a dumpster in this location with the loading docks. He stated that the proximity of that does not really integrate itself into this site. He noted that it was ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 15 DRAFT-MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 questionable if Main Street comes down if it would integrate there. He pointed out that it was 60 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Rieley supported that wording. Mr. Craddock asked on the back of the property up to Ridge Road what you would be looking at. He stated that if this project gets approved and then.the other projects don't, then you would be looking at a tremendous wall. He asked if all of that area would be graded. Mr. Barnes stated that at this time the concept as he understood it beSt was that the grading off the top of the hill to accommodate some of that will be used for fill for this project. To the west of this project is the ridgeline that runs north/south to the site which would be lowered. There is still an elevation difference that would require a 10-foot retaining wall. The applicants are grading this portion down significantly to try to match it u p with the backs of the stores in that area. Mr. Edgerton asked what assurances would the Commission or the public have that anything other than this phase would be built. Mr. Barnes stated that at this time they have no assurances. Mr. Barnes stated that right now the proffer plan calls for this arrangement of buildings and this square footage. Any additional square footage or infill would require another rezoning. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for Mr. E~arnes or other staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Corn mission. Steve Blaine, representative for the applicants, Regency Center and Dierman Realty for ZMA-01- 19 for Parcel B, stated that they were the Target and the Giant Food. The area in question is outlined in red on this plan. This is a current version Of the plan that is being proffered as part of the application plan. This is a larger version of that plan and shows additional detail, which was included in their packet. They have responses to the staff report, but to make the best use of time he was willing to answer questions. He pointed out that this process started 37 months ago with the comprehensive plan amendment that the Commission initiated. It was interesting to hear the 'characterizations of that tonight because he recalled that the recommendation from this Commission was a .75 FAR for the entire Hollymead area. They looked at what the reality would be for developing that and found that to be unrealistic and very dense. In fact, they argued for a less aggressive FAR. It is interesting in hearing the characterization of infrastructure and the contrast in your characterization of what the vision was for the County and how we see it today. In contrast to the last application, they have specific tenants and have worked with the Commission in work sessions. He noted that they were very appreciative in the appointment of the sub-committee that worked with them in three work sessions to address the design issues. They feel that the issues that are left are fairly minor in design. They worked with the sub- committee and changed the orientation of the building, provided some relegated parking and some shared parking. They changed the entrance road to provide an allay to provide orientation as you enter the center to look at the focal point of the fagade of the Target. They put emphasis on street trees and were willing to provide sidewalks on both sides of that area. They beefed up some of the uses to provide a focal point at the end of that main street area. In terms of the open space area, that was in response to a comment, about how to provide a focal point at Main Street. The previous plan showed an edge of a building there. He noted that they could go back to that. They have provided parallel parking along the fagades of the retail centers. They provided a bus stop. They provided grade breaks in this area to address the change in grade on the parking area. He pointed out that some of the parking was centralized parking which was what the Comprehensive Plan called for in this area. He pointed out that in contrast to the last application, they have tried to work with the Commission and staff in work sessions. He acknowledged that they have to go back through the ARB process for a Certificate of ApprOpriateness. He noted ALBEMARLE COUN-FY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 16 that they could provide additional street trees to address their landscaping requirements. They would contrast that with the last application. Ms. Hopper asked what the cross-hexed was on the fronL Mr. Blaine stated that was an attempt to put a plaza or a courtyard to provide a focal point at the end of Main Street. He pointed out that these were ideas that Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Thomas brought up. Mr. Blaine stated that with the mixed use what they hoped to have is less emphasis on transportation needs and requirements. That was really the genesis of our traffic study. The traffic study was to do more than measure the impacts of each application. They had objectives to provide a planning tool for projecting future transportation in this area. He pointed out that in one of the first meetings with Jim Bryan, resident engineer, he kept saying that they wanted to view this as a planning tool and not just for the Commission. They need to understand what the recommendations are. The recommendations are based upon the criteria of VDOT's. It wasa negotiated process, but really that VDOT imposed. The recommendations were to meet certain levels of service. To meet the level of service C, and given the back ground traffic that they project and given the traffic generated from this site, one of the options that you would be faced with would be to build an additional four lanes for 29 for this roadway segment. That is part of the planning tool for this study. That is not to say that the County has to choose that option. There has also been, and the staff has put some effort into this, efforts to look at alternative corridors for transportation. That is just a little tiny segment, of that, but that is really the rationale or benefit of having this Ridge Road. He recognized that for that to make a measurable impact on 29, it would have to be extended beyond our project. The traffic study was not saying that for this application to be approved you have to build four lanes on Route 29. That is. not.what it .says~ It takes all of the contemplated uses in Hollymead Town Center of 180 acres and tries to project the traffic generation into the future. They were not able to address the traffic study in a way that recognizes the benefit of a mixed-use. They talked a little bit about this at a work session in things like internal trip factors, which were ways that mixed-use projects reduces the traffic generation outside of the project for trips that would otherwise pass by this site and go to another destination. This was referred to as the 15 percent pass by factor that was used for the study, which meant that 85 percent of the traffic in this measure would only go to this location. He stated that they alt knew that was not the case. H e stated that the people in the Hollymead area will not have to drive into Charlottesville and that diverted link impact is not contemplated or incorporated in this traffic study. Therefore, he felt that the big numbers of vehicle .trips were overstated. In retrospect in just representing this applicant of 198,000 square feet, what he should have advised his client to do was to use the old fashion way. That way would involve using the trip generation calculation from the permitted density under the existing zoning, and then using the trip generation calculation after the. zoning is approved. The County has ,provided the.density for the trip generatiOn basis in the physical impact statement, The County has provided retail provided by right of 246,000 square feet. What they propose is 189,000 square feet. He stated that the difference in the vehicle trips was marginal. Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. Blaine for his presentation. He pointed out that he would be g~ven another opportunity to speak at the end. He stated that he would go back to the sign-in sheet and ask Forest Hyler to come forward to s peak. Forest Hyler, resident of Albemarle County since 1975, stated that he lived near the 29 Corridor in Northfields. He stated that he was in favor of the Hollymead Town Center because he did not think it would make a big impact on the traffic. He pointed out that the people in Hollymead and Ruckersville would not be coming all the way into town to shop. Bill Stokes, resident of Albemarle County, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the Hol!ymead Town Center would help the tax base and provide jobs for the area. He pointed out ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMI']-rED APRIL 1, 2003 17 that Giant makes contributions to the schools. He asked that the Commission vote favorably for this project. Josh Freeman, resident of Albemarle County, stated that he was in favor of the proposed project both professionally and personally. As a banker, he felt that a project like this should stimulate sensible groWth to provide jobs and encourage consumer spending to increase the County's tax base. Steve Dello stated that he lived just north of this project on Route 29. He expressed his support for the project because it would be a great benefit to the citizens of this County and for the other reasons already stated. Andrea Cushney stated that she lived on Route 29 North and was in support of this project. She presented a list of 25 signatures of other persons who were in support of the project. Tony Seaman spoke in favor of the proposed project. He asked the Commission to consider the fact that the traffic studies are difficult to understand the true impact that the traffic will have. He pointed out that most traffic studies give the worst case scenarioand project way out in the future. Tim Kaczmarek, resident of Albemarle County and a small business owner i.n town, stated that he was for the project. He pointed out that his family makes monthly trips out of the area specifically to go to Target. He stated that he had not experienced the traffic as being that much of a problem on Route 29. He asked that the Commission vote for the project. Jamie Goodso, resident of the Briarwood Community, stated that she as wel as all of her neighbors was in support of the proposal. She asked that the Commission approve the request. Timothy Holden, of the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, stated that Mr. Blaine made a very persuasive presentation. He stated that Mr. Blaine did a good job of reviewing the design in general terms. He acknowledged that the economic impact was not the Commission's job, but pointed out that the economic consequences will clearly involve jobs. He asked that the Commission vote in favor of the project. Charlie Tractor stated that this part of the dual application ~s more specific, but it still does not address the traffic. He stated that he wanted a Target Store, but did not like the way that the entire development was being presented. He asked that the Commission carefully consider the traffic problem in this area. Bill Howard stated that he has been a realtor for 30 years and a commercial realtor for 16 years. He pointed out that he was not involved with this project, but was involved in the Forest Lakes area. He stated that there was no available retail space in the Forest Lakes area. He encouraged the Commission to support this proposal. Ann Malleck reread the statement for Joe Rinkevich who ~s president of Earlysville Area Residents' League who is out of town. She heartily endorsed the recommendation of the planning staff to deny the rezoning requests of ZMA-01-18 and 19 because of their effect on the transportation system in Earlysville and the local environment. She asked that they not allow this development until the infrastructure improvements are paid for and in place. (A copy of Ms. Mallek's presentation 'is attached.) Chuck Pollock, of Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that the core concerns are the same as those expressed in the previous application. He stated that you can not wish away the negative traffic impacts as this is currently designed. He pointed out that as this is currently designed it is not a mixed-use. He stated that this week there was a design process going on trying to develop new alternatives for improving the 29 Corridor and to improve the traffic that they have. Those improvements would be completely overwhelmed if they don't pay attention to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ MARCH 11,2003 18 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMI-I-I'ED APRIL 1, 2003 the traffic generation of projects such as this. He noted that this project will have major traffic impact and he urged them to send it back to the drawing board. There are some merit to this project, but as currently configured the traffic impacts is just toosevere. George Mahanes, resident of Ivy, stated that he was a substitute speaker here tonight speaking on behalf~ of his wife, her bridge club, Sunday School. class, the neighborhood and her co- workers. They have all expressed a strong deSire to have a Target Store in the area. He pointed out that a lot of people in the area travel to the' Richmond area to shop, He supported the applications. Chris Webster, resident of Forest Lakes South, spoke in favor of this development. He felt that the addition of the Target Store and Giant would add to the northern end of Albemarle County. He stated that this development was perfect for this area. In regards to traffic, he felt that the hurdle had been addressed with the expansion of the bridge crossing the Rivanna River. He emphasized his support for this project. Nell Harris echoed his comments in his previous discussion. He stated that in all this talk about traffic, in the 20 years of being a retail executive before he came to Charlottesville, that through these same kinds of developments he has never in hindsight seen traffic match up to what some of the projections were. More importantly, he has never seen a good template that lays over real retail periods with traffic periods. They are just typically at different times of the day. There seems to be a very large misconception-that retail store peak periods do nothing but add to the peak of the traffic prOblem. He noted that it actually was opposition. If anything, retail peak periods get,traffic off already congested roads because it gives people a break to do something on their way to work or on the way home from work. Teresa Hayslett stated that she had just recently moved back to Albemarle County and would love to see the revenue stay in the County. She stated that this town center was needed in this area because they did: not like to drive all the way back to Charlottesville to shop. She felt that this would .upgrade the County and is very beneficial. Eleanor Breeden,. resident of Forest Springs Mobile Home Park, spoke in favor of the Target Store because they could walk over there. She pointed out that everybody in the park was in favor of the proposal. There being no further public comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for discussion and action. Ms. Hopper asked for a few minutes to read through the information handed out by Mr. Blaine. Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission would take a few minutes to read the letter submitted by Mr. Blaine. (A copy of:the letter submitted by Mr, Blaine is attached.) Mr. Rieley invited Mr. Blaine to address the Commission for his rebuttal. Mr. Blaine asked to put aside the issue of economics because he agreed that their primary role was as planners. He stated that initially they were going to use the traffic study as a planning tool, but now it is being used to club us over the head. The traffic study's aim was to measure all of the combined impacts of the Hollymead Town Center. It should be no surprise if you apply the level of service that VDOT imposes for what they regard as a rural segment level of service C, that you would have a projected need for additional lanes. That is really what VDOT was saying in-their 1979 Corridor Study for the widening of Route 29 into 6 lanes. That is also what they were saying in their 1993 Corridor Study when they did the base case for the segment up through the river. The same types of projections were given. It said that by the year 2010 there would be 54,000 vehicles on that segment, and therefore it warranted 8 lanes. Similarly our study shows that if you take in to account the background traffic and project the growth that you will have ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 19 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 55,000 vehicle trips per day. So if you apply the VDOT logic that they have used in the base case; it would call for 4 lanes. He noted'that they don't think that you have to necessarily agree with that. They have heard the staff and others in the County talking about why should we just keep making 29 more and more lanes. Why shouldn't we look for alternative approaches? He pointed out that the Commissioners are the Planners and asked how was a developer with a projected development that is contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan suppose to address it when we don't have a plan. In fairness if you told us that we had a plan, then it should be part of the Comprehensive Plan: What we have is a Comprehensive Plan that shows the uses that are depicted on these maps before you. We don't have a phasing plan in the Comprehensive Plan. We all know that infrastructure follows development and you don't necessarily want to build 8 lanes for Route 29 if you don't need 8 lanes. It is a waste of public resources and public capital. He pointed out that they have been accused of being conventional for the infrastructure to follow the development. He stated that he would be happy to answers any questions. Ms. Hopper stated that the staff report said that Phase Ill of the traffic study has not been completed. She asked what that would entail. Mr. Barnes referred the question to Glenn Brooks of the County Engineering Department. Mr. Blaine asked to reserve a moment of time for later. Glenn Brooks pointed out that Randy Kemp was present and could also speak to the study since he was the author of the study. He stated that as he understood the study, it was suppose to evaluate the internal roads to the development. Staff has not gotten to the point that they were sure enough of the layout to rely on it and do an evaluation of the study that they feel wo. uld be accurate. Staff has not even gotten into the study. Mr. Barnes stated that the other, element that was suppose to be addressed was that the Comprehensive Plan lays out the need potentially for grade separation as part of a concept along Route 29. It would provide a connection between Forest Lakes and this area that would be dealt with by grade-separated interchanges and a grade separated crossover. That was to be taken up in this portion of the study so we would know what kind of right-of-way would have to be reserved for that kind of thing to happen. This is suppose to be a mixed-use development where people can walk, live, shop and have all of the uses that they need. If this is developed by itself, you don't get that benefit. He pointed out that they have not gotten to this point in their assessment of the town center. They don't know how this will integrate into the other parts of the town center and Forest Lakes. Ms. Hopper stated that she would like to know or have proposals or alternatives about how other communities handle these large rezonings. Often there is a large packet of proffers that go along with a large rezoning to give back to the community. She pointed.out that was brought out in the staff report with contributions to libraries and to the traffic infrastructure. Mr. Blaine in his memo brought up that they have already offered to contribute $500,000. She asked staff how much does this application need to contribute or they need to consider asking for to contribute for these types of interconnections that they are talking about such as grade separated interchanges and road improvements. She asked staff what we are asking for in the range of alternatives. She noted that she did not need the answer tonight. Mr. Barnes stated that they are fitting this proposal in the Comprehensive Plan and it needs to fit into a network of transportation that supports this. Staff tried to report to the Commission last year that the land use plan transportation component is not supporting what is called for in Comprehensive Plan at this time. Staff suggested a series of parallel roads and other improvements and the CHART Committee is looking to do that. He stated that they needed to determine what the form is and then they need programs for improvements. He stated that if you put in a regional use s~ch as the town center and don't have the transportation network to support it,.then you are going to get a flow of people from the south coming to this regional ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 20 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 destination which will overwhelm not only Route 29 but also the rural roads that run parallel to it. He stated that was their biggest concern in regards to the transportation issues. Mr. Blaine stated that there was a question about the Phase III traffic analysis that was submitted on January 10. The traffic analysis was submitted again at the request of VDOT. He pointed out that the County was interested in knowing what impacts if any a grade-separated interchange at Timberwood Boulevard would have. It was submitted three months ago. The conclusions were that grade separated interchanges would not provide a benefit because of the turning movements that would be needed from vehicles exiting this center here and having to make a weaving motion getting back into the traffic. The storage requirements on Route 29 at both Airport Road and Timberwood Boulevard can be accommodated under signalized conditions, an interchange arrangement that does not appear to have any significant benefits on the traffic on Route 29 North.· That is in the foreseeable future. If we look at 50 to 75 years in the future, perhaps it will. The other happy news from the Phase Ill, which staff did not mention, we did want to have a sense that the sizing of some of these roads that are interior to the center had some relevance or relation to the actuality in terms of trip' generation. The happy news is that the designs for Ridge Road, for example, there were some desires expressed that could be a boulevard design street, and that can be accommodated. Once staff has a chance to review that, they will report that to you. Phase III is a red herring in the sense that they were asked to do an additional study for way into the future planning purposes. It does not have an impact on this application for 298,000 square feet that is on a regional corridor. Iris a gross overstatement that it is going to overwhelm this road segment here based on the densities that they talked about earlier. It is a gross overStatement to say that it is going to overwhelm the rural roads five miles from this site because that is not what the facts show in the study. It shows that it is about 8 percent additional traffic generated from the entire Hollymead Town Center~ which is 180 acres. He pointed out that they were about 10 percent of that overall trip generation. He'felt it was important togo through the traffic study as much as they need to, but they need to get the facts. Ms. Hopper asked if the applicant has considered a more generous proffer packet regarding the amenities that she talked about before and .more contributions to the traffic infrastructure. She noted that they were talking about macro-planning as well and while the applicant is going to be developing this within a shorter timeframe, then it is going to be impacting a greater area and they need to factor that in. Mr. Blaine stated that the developer has tried to identify those improvements that are substantially generated by their project. That is the CUP case and the established precedence in Virginia. They found it very obvious that the improvements that are generated from this project are the additional left turn lanes and signalization 'at the cemetery. This entrance road that would provide access to both this area as well as Area A andto the future development of the core of the town center as well as frontage improvements for it. Those were the obvious ones. Ms. Hopper stated that she understood that there was a bare m~nimum and what she was asking was they willing to do more than that. Mr. Blaine stated that he would say that they would beif the improvements were presented that are substantially generated by this project. But it is a little bit like negotiating against yourself by saying perhaps there are some other improvements, but they don't see what they are. The traffic study shows that these improvements to Route 29, as we have known for 10 years are needed. They were needed before we came along: So there is not a direct link to what is substantially generated by this project. He stated that if she had any suggestions that they would listen to them. Ms. Hopper stated that she did not want to undercut the macro planning that needs to be done and staff not having enough information. But' in order for Mr.'Blaine not to have to negotiate against himself was her question about having a request for more might be helpful. She stated that as 'a Planning Commission for them to be able to examine the rezoning application and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION .- MARCH 11,2003 21 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 having the ARB's comments is very important as well as other ~ssues~ would the applicant consider a deferral to talk more about the fine tuning of this. Mr. Blaine asked if she was referring to the site design .elements that are identified in this staff report. He stated that they frankly felt that those were types of things that theycould address at the ARB. They have attempted to address those items that you identified in the work session. He stated that he did not know if they were set in stone if they felt that an additional continuance or deferral to discuss those is needed, but they were fairly minor. Ms. Hopper stated that this was a great improvement and she could see the work that they did with the committee. Mr. Rieley stated that he felt that a deferral was premature at this time since they wanted to hear from all the Commissioners on the larger issues. Ms. Hopper stated that other than design issues, 'she did not have anything else. Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Thomas pointed out that there were other items that were missing for the rezoning and special use permit. He asked if the applicant was willing to commit to the infill strategy and the police and fire protection. Mr. Edgerton stated that one of Mr. Blaines's comments was right on target. It was that our responsibility is as planners. As a planner, his judgement is that the model being proposed is a bad model. The model being proposed is to let the market, in this case Target and Giant, plan for our community. An alternative model~ which he would hope to see someday, is for our community to develop a plan and then engage the market into it. A lot of effort has gone into developing the plan for our community and he would have hoped that this town center would have been more consistent with the CPA. This is exactly the type of development that they have experienced for the last thirty years. This is a typical big box development shopping center. We have no assurances that we will ever see a town center or a mixed-use both mandated by the CPA. The inability of our current transportation system to support this project with no relief in sight mandates that he could not support in good conscience this project. In his opinion, the community has far more to lose than we would gain from the convenience of Target. rvlr. Finley stated that it seemed that the people out that way have seen something that they want out there. He asked what their goal was here. He asked if a deferral would right any wrongs we have and come back and try to settle this matter. He aske.d what the big hang up was at this point. Mr. Rieley pointed out that they were going around the table to hear each person's opinion. Mr. Finley stated that some of the matters are quite small and that the planners and engineers should be able to resolve most of them without holding another Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he would wait for a motion and vote accordingly. Mr. Craddock stated that this project is a great improvement over what they have seen in the past on this same piece of property. They have done a lot of work in trying to place buildings appropriately and there is a lot of infill that they have talked about. There was a design that had some infill on it that he felt was a good idea. He pointed out that his concern was if this gets approved and nothing else, obviously the whole shooting match will work unless all of the pieces are there. He felt that with 'some work this could be approved. He stated that he would like to see where they go from there. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 22 Ms. Hopper stated that throughout Mr. Blaine's report he talks about the different infill conceptual plans that have been discussed and presented to staff. She would like to see as part of approving this is a commitment to that in saying that this is the conceptual plan and having it a part of the rezoning. Then if the plan has to be amended, it will have to be brought back. At least that would g'~ve a commitment to the type of infill and the human scale. Mr. Finley asked exactly what they were committing to or what commitment were they suggesting. Ms. Hopper stated that the commitment that she was talking about was the phasing plan so that when the infill happens that it will be marked out so it will happen to the level of detail to a rezonmg. Then when the actual phasing happens if there have to be changes to that of having to come back and getting an amendment to the rezoning. It would be having it firm enough so that there is a true commitment and not just a .conceptual idea out there. That was what she was talkin§ about. Mr. Rieley stated that they don't zone to let in a Target or a Giant. They zone to allow a certain amount of square feet in a certain configuration and that goes with the land. It does not matter if Target goes somewhere tomorrow and it does not matter if that turns into a used clothing store. We are establishing land use and that it is all they are doing. He thought it was clear and that Mr. Blaine had done a tremendous job of explaining these disastrous traffic figures, but this was five years from now as projected by their consultants according to methOdology that theY agreed upon in advance. All of the red bars show the distance above a failing level for the intersections. It is a disaster. Now granted that this is not a disaster that applies to only one or two buildings that are related to this application. This is an analysis of the entire property. But what this demonstrates is that the transportation infrastructure is not anywhere near adequate to handle that traffic that this proposal is going to generate. That makes it enormously clear that this CPA cannot be executed all at once. Because there is no phasing written into the Comprehensive Plan to would suggest or imply that you have to approve the whole thing immediately, which is nonsense. That is not what Comprehensive Plans are and that is not how they work. We are working towards a target that has been established as part of the Comprehensive Plan. They have to work towards it responsibly. We cannot approve more than our system can handle. He felt that the staff has done a fabulous job of articulating the reason why they cannot do all of this right now in this location. He read one paragraph from the staff report because it really puts the finger on the issue. It says, "after pointing out that with all of the proposals for additional commercial space, it exceeds by almost fifty percent of the current demand. Good economic planning would suggest that the market should not be over saturated with 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 for where existing infrastructure is already in place or where scarce transportation funding can provide the most beneficial improvements for 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." Mr. Finley asked if the inefficient use of land was talked about in that paragraph as well. Mr. Rieley stated that it was and that he agreed with that as well. He felt that what this suggests and urges us to do is to regard the CPA as a long-term target and to work towards those pieces that we can approve now and to work towards the pieces that will not overwhelm the existing transportation infrastructure. It is true that development generally precedes the infrastructure. It is a sad but true fact. But when it overwhelms to this extent as shown in this traffic study, it would be totally irresponsible for us to allow this to happen to Route 29. So what he proposed is that they move ahead with the pieces of this that they can move ahead with and continue to work with this in the context of the CPA. From his perspective, this does not fit that and should not be one of the first pieces n, and of itself will have too huge an impact on the transportation. He stated that he was not in favor of minor improvements. The real issue is that this is at the wrong place at ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 23 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 ihis time. When some of these parallel roads start to come along and some of the improvements of Route 29 come along, then this piece of-the puzzle could be put into place. He did not think that it Could be put into place now. Mr. Finley stated that he had stated that they wanted specificity and 'at least they knew what they were getting with a Target. Mr. Thomas asked how this project had gotten this far. Mr. Rieley stated that because they did not have the traffic figures. Mr. Thomas noted that the developer has spent over one million dollars on this. Mr. Rieley stated that he made it clear in the last application that it was the pieces towards the west that he wanted to go forward. Mr. Thomas stated that they were not. before us. He stated that he' wold like to see the minor changes and the additional information provided to address some of the concerns listed in the staff report. He stated that the applicant should commit to the infill strategy~ Mr. Rieley stated that they have to decide what the infrastructure can handle and approve those pieces and not approve those that don't. Mr. Finley stated that he agreed with Mr. Thomas that they should do whatever was needed to move this on. Action: Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of ZMA-01-19, Hollymead Town Center, Regional Service Area B, with the proffers. Mr. Finley seconded the motion. The motion for the recommendation of approval for ZMA-01-19 failed by a-(3:3)vote. (Craddock, Finley, Thomas - Aye) (Hopper, Rieley, Edgerton - No) (Loewenstein - Absent) Mr. Rieley stated that this was a tie vote and ZMA-0'I-19 would go to the Board with a failed (3:3) vote. n light of that, he stated that they needed to make comments on the two special use permits. SP 01-63 Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In A" - Request for special use permit to allow a drive-in window in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses permitted by special use permitin C-1, CO and HC districts. (Michael Barnes) Action: Mr. Finley made a motion to recommend approval of SP-01-63, Hollymead Town Center, "Drive- In A". Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Barnes pointed out that the applications don't necessarily reference one use or the other. Mr. Rieley stated that these are two generic drive-in windows. He pointed out that the applications have not been to the ARB in their current configuration. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 24 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 Mr. Barnes concurred .that they have not. Mr. Kamptner clarified that the recommendation for approval would be contingent upon the approval of the zoning map amendment. Mr. Barnes stated that on page 28, in the last paragraph under the heading of will the use be of substantial detriment to the adjacent property, it states that the ARB can support the request for the drive-through bank. But it states that the ARB cannot support the request for the drive- through restaurant at this time when the issues regarding the appearance, signs, and equipment are not resolved. The ARB has the same concerns that are addressed in the staff report under staff's recommendation. Mr. Thomas asked if he needed to add a condition to require that they receive additional information from the ARB. Mr. Kamptner stated that the request has to go to the ARB anyway to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Rieley askedfor a role call vote. The motion for the recommendation of approval of SP-01-63failed by a (3:3) vote. (Craddock, Finley, Thomas - Aye) (Hopper, Rieley, Edgerton - No) (Loewenstein - Absent) SP 01-64 Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B" - Request for special use permit to allow a drive-in window in accordance with Section 25A.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for uses permitted by special, use permit in C-1, CO and HC districts. (Michael Barnes) Action: Mr. Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of SP-01-64: Hollymead Town Center, "Drive-In B": Mr. Finley seconded the motion. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner if there were any conditions on this. Mr. Kamptner stated that the ARB would have to review the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness regardless. Mr. Rieley stated that it was obligatory. He asked for a role call vote. The motion for the recommendation of approval failed by a (3:3) vote. (Cradclock, Finley, Thomas - Aye) (Hopper, Rieley, Edgerton - No) (Loewenstein - Absent) Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board of Supervisors would hear this matter on May 7th. Mr. Finley left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he had a question that he might want to ask of the County Attorney with the Planning Commission based on the (3:3) votes that they had. In going back to the Commission's Rules of Procedure where a tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. It was stated that it was going to the Board with no recommendation. He questioned if it was actually going with a recommendation for denial. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 25 Mr. Kamptner stated that the legal effect was that it was denied. ' Mr. Rieley stated that the motions did not carry. He pointed out that he concluded things by saying that the motion was defeated only to be corrected to say that it will go to the Board with no recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this was for the benefit of the Recording Secretary because she has to report through the minutes what that vote represented. He pointed out that he wanted to get the record straight. Mr. Rieley stated that it was correct to state that the motions failed on a (3:3) vote. Mr. Gilimberg agreed that was the best way to term it. Work Session ZMA-02-10 Sandy Lane Residential Village (Sign # 24, 54~ 69)- Request to rezone 68.96 acres from Residential (R-l) to Residential (R-6) to allow up to six units per acre. The concept plan shows two phases of development. The first phase is 416 residential units in apartments and townhomes designed for university students. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 24 is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District at 400 Stribling Avenue Extended. The property is bordered on the north by the Norfolk Southern Railroad, on the west by Interstate-64, on the east by Moores Creek on the south by. Sunset Avenue Extended. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density, recommended for 3-6 units per acre, in Neighborhood 5 and 6. (Margaret Doherty) Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. She stated that the Planning Commission held a work session on this item in October. There were several outstanding issues preventing the Planning Commission from recommending that the applicant pursue a rezoning. The applicant has asked for this work session tonight to discuss mainly the core issue of the last work session which were transportation improvements. The applicant prepared a traffic impact analysis, which has been reviewed by the Engineering Department, the transportation planner and VDOT. She pointed out that Glen Brooks was present if there were any questions. The applicant has also submitted a special use permit for the stream crossings, a revised master plan and a memorandum responding to our comments and to the work session. The crux of the issue last time was that there is an Area B Study underway now for this part of the County between the joint study of the pack of the University, the City and the County to study transportation and land use improvements here. Staff recommended that the rezoning not be pursued until that has been completed. The Planning Commission agreed. The applicant has deCided to try to do some of the traffic study themselves and present that information in hopes of being able to pursue a rezoning in lieu of waiting for the Area B Study to be completed. She pointed out that the applicants have a presentation, but she would be happy to answer any questions that they might have. Staff continues to recommend that no action take place on this proposal until the Area B Study is complete and the other issues have been resolved. Mr. Edgerton stated that this was a work session and not a decision-making session. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct. Mr. Kamptner stated that if all goes well the Area B Study should be starting in April. Mr. Rieley asked the applicant to come forward to make their presentation. George McCallum, attorney for the applicants, stated that their issue for this evening is to see if there is a basis upon which they could proceed with consideration by the Commission of this zoning map amendment without waiting for the Area B Study to be complete. He presented a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 26 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 handout to the Planning Commission. He stated that in the handout is their recollection and notes of the Area B Study update time line. As of this .time, he did not know if the contract had been signed with the consultant. The next pagehas a summary of the Sandy Lane Village land use time line starting with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment submission of September 2001. What they contemplate or project is an Area B Study adoption time line, which would take it out to April 2006 which was three years from now. That would be when they would be able to submit a zoning map amendment request with the Area B in play and with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment having been adopted. My client is Doug Catch who is the sole owner and the manager of the aPplicant, Sandy Lane LLC. He pointed out that with him today were Mr. Granger, owner of the property; Mr. Stegman, project manager; Frank Cox and Mike Fenner, both of Cox and Company. They have been working on this prior to the September 2001. There was a contract done with Mr. Granger about six months earlier. The timeframe in which this contract can remain has an end to it. The end to it is closer than two or three years away. There is a need from Mr. Caton's standpoint if he is going to be the developer Of this, that there needs to be a way to proceed with this zoning map amendment so that they would have a basis.to acquire this property from Mr. Granger. This zoning map amendment is really a follow up to what Doug desires and that is the higher density of 15 units per acre, which requires the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was applied for in September 2001. That process became involved in the Area B Study because it was a zoning map amendment to increase density~ The Comprehensive Plan supports the R-6 density, which was part of this request. The zoning map amendment was filed within the current Comprehensive Plan to establish a zoning density where Doug could physically and financially see fit and go forth and acquire the property knowing that he had some density that he could, use. But what he would like to do is to fulfill an understanding of a higher density. He thought the Commission and the County is seeking a higher density in an infill area. This piece of property as you suspect is ideally suited for this as an infill high density and the challenge is getting access to it. There has been wrapped into this the fact that there '~s 'an unsatisfied need that may be seen through the Area B Study. What they were asking was to try to find a basis so they can proceed within the next 2, 3; or 4 months with a zoning map amendment to provide for density for a project~'that would be workable at a later time. This would allow Mr. Caton to go forward and acquire the property. Frank Cox can speak to the public road. With this project at this density, Doug cannot afford to build a public connector road to go from Sunset Avenue Extended to Stribling Avenue Extended going under or over a railroad or however. They cannot afford to do it at this density. Frank Cox advises me that in his analysis a public road that is wholly within this property would greatly diminish the development potential of the property. The area that could possibly be used for a road alignment for some connector in here would run to the north of the power line that crosses the property. The power line is down by the stream and part of that land is within the Granger property and a part of it is not. Cox prepared this handout and Company shows a location of a connector that Frank says if VDOT were looking at this as a way to sweep through. He pointed, out that their property line was not involved in that at all. Doug would be willing, if they could go forward to offer a proffer for part of the zoning map amendment and site plan to dedicate the land that lies to the north on this drawing if the land was in some ultimate alignment that was going to be built, but he was not in the position to build it himself. For this project to be held unacted on or nothing occur~rir~g until they get through the Area B process is something that may cause Doug Catch to not likely be the developer. They were .asking in this work session to see if they could come to a basis of proceeding further with consideration of the zoning map amendment with in the next several months. They were not trying to deal with the transportation details, CHARTS and the traffic counts in this meeting tonight when the Commission is worn out. He pointed out that he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Thomas stated that he had a question about the connector road that was not even on their property as to how they could' even propose something like that. Mr. McCallUm stated that their thought was that when the Area B Study looks at the topography of this particular Granger site and looks at where the road wasgoing to be built that the alignment would not be on the Granger property. The purpose is just to Show, as Frank Cox believes where ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 27 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 the alignment would be in a perfect world. In an ~mperfect world, the alignment might fall along the stream. Mr. Cox indicates that they would have to cross the stream and would be in the fiood plain. He pointed out that his clients would offer land if an alignment comes down at the stream. They would still have a developable piece of property, but other lands would be needed from property owned by others. Mr. Rieley stated that it was true that they look to make good use of the land in the development areas and at as high a reasonable density that they can. It is also true that they try to achieve a mixture of uses and hope that this increased density also comes along with adherence to the Neighborhood Model. He noted that his reservation about this from the first time they saw it was that it was too much like a student warehousing projects and not enough like neighborhood mixed development. Since that time it has lost mixed-use and is exclusively residential. Relative to the Area B Study, he felt that the only way that he would support this in its current configuration were if it went through the Area B Study and the study recommended this type of monolithic use for some reason that he did not understand now. Mr. Thomas agreed that the Area B Study needs to look at it for the first time and make a recommendation. He noted that they could not predict where they will say that the road Should go at this point. He agreed with the topography because this would probably be a logical place, but that is not his property. Therefore, he did not see how he could proffer or propose anything over on that side of the line. Mr. Rieley stated that the other pertinent thing relative to the Area B Study was that the area was kind of a funny shape Pike a three-sided weapon and had a key position in the study. It does have implications for the County, City and the University. He noted that he was sympathetic with the time restraints. Mr. Thomas stated that the most important thing about the Area B Study at this time was the connector road. He stated that it was going to be very important where the connector goes and how it goes through. He pointed oul that there were some other important issues as well. Ms. Hopper statedthat the area needed the benefit of that study, but it was unfortunate that it was going to take so long. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any room to tighten up Mr. McCallum's time line. Mr.r Cilimberg stated that the first two dates starting in April and ending in March of next year would follow along with what the contract calls for. Beyond that he would certainly hope they were not talking about one year for PACT to adopt that study. He noted that he has never experienced that amount of time for PACT to act on any other study that they have gotten out of a process like this. Usually it is a matter of several months. Currently it is also shared with the Commissions of the City and the County, the Master Council of the University and then goes on to the Boards for a Comp Plan Amendment that simply notes that the study has been done and recognizes it as a guide. He would hope that they were not looking at one year and then an additional time for the CPA's because the intent of the Area B Study is to address those issues that a CPA address. Mr. Rieley stated that should not be shorter than a normal CPA. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he could not tell the Commission the exact date beyond the finishing of the consultant's work next year, but he really did not think that they were looking at two years after that before the applicant could proceed with the ZMA request. He noted that the applicant was trying to get their okay to move forward with the ZMA, but staff has recommended that not- happen. He pointed out that if they choose to do so that they can do that because they don't need the Commission's concurrence at all. The ZMA is properly before the County. The applicant can move on with that. The message is out there on how the staff would view that and he ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 28 thought they were looking for the Commission's input as well as to how you would view it. He stated that was something that they could make the choice to do. Mr. Craddock felt that the Area B Study would be great. It appears to him that the road was still going to come out on Stribling Avenue Extended. ~With the proximity of this project to the University, it is not going to be single-family homes. He stated that it was going to be some type of student housing. One of the things from driving back through there a number of times that railroad underpass is not much different than the one on ivy Road. Mr. Rieley stated that the one out there was 13' 4". Mr. Thomas stated that it was little bit better than the one on Ivy Road. He pointed out that they were going to redesign that bridge to get it wide enough for buses. Mr. Craddock stated that it would be beneficial to have the Area B Study. Mr. Edgerton stated that looking at the topo that Mr. Cox has made a good guess on where the road might go, but it was an academic process. He pointed out that he would like to know of a way to expedite the process: From a planning standpoint, the Commission needs to have the information before they can make a wise decision. He asked if there was any wayto expedite the study. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the contract was a one-year contract. Mr. McCallum stated that it was originally submitted as a mixed-use, but the current Zoning Ordinance does not allow mixed-use and so that was taken out to make it compliant with the current Zoning Ordinance. What they would like to do is a mixed-use. Mr. Rieley stated that makes you wonder if this is the right zoning destination for it. He pointed out that next week they might have another one available to us. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the application is for R-6. He noted that there were other districts that could be applied for that were mixed-use. He pointed out that in a planned development you could do mixed-use. Mr. McCallum pointed out that this was not just for students, but for other University people who are not necessarily st~Jdents but associated with the medical center. He stated that they wanted to have something that can go forward into the next stage of Planning when the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance will permit what he really wants to do. This is a stopgap. Mr. Cilimberg stated that if this moves forward as a rezoning, the one thing that they will do as they have done on others, is that they will be sharing the rezoning proposal in whatever form that it finally lands with the City and the University for their input. Mr. Rieley stated that if the applicant chooses to move forward without the Area B Study that the Neighborhood Model District might be a better avenue for your proposal than the R-6 if it gets passed next week. He stated that it was the consensus of the Commission that they would rather review this after the Area B Study has been completed. The other issue is the specific design of the site itself. On that, he felt that it was clear that the Neighborhood Model would serve both of their interests better. He stated that nobody was recommending that you go ahead with the project in advance of the Area B Study. They hope that when it comes back that it will come back as a N~ighborhood Model rezoning rather than an R-6. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has not given a date for the Comprehensive Plan change th'at would ultimately be ad,o~ted. He stated that the Area B Study was to be finished within one year starting by April 1 or sooner because they were basically looking for the University to sign off on ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11, 2003 29 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 the contract. At that point of time itwas immediately before not onlY PACT but also the City and County for approval in reference as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. So they were talking normally about a matter of months after the completion of the Area B Study was adopted. He stated that he did not 'think that it would be over two years after the Area B Study was finished. He noted that he w0uid not try to pinpoint a date or how many months after the Area B Study was completed. Ms. Doherty asked if they pursued a rezoning of some type, would the Commission agree with staff's recommendations about the type of road that would serve a mixed-used development on this site that was stated in the staff report. It was restated in this staff report about being a public road that connects from Fontaine to Sunset and they would either improve the tunnel or build a bridge over the railroad. It would connect at the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine and not at Stribling which were the transportation type of recommendations made in the staff report. Mr. Cilimberg stated that in lieu of the Area B Study, this is what staff believes would then has to happen. Mr. Craddock stated that he would perfer to see them have their own separate road. Mr. Rieley stated that would be really tough and environmentally damaging to put a public road along there. Mr. Thomas pointed out that it would probably be an improvement to the stream due to the large amount of trash around the stream. Mr. Rieley stated that he was worried about the impact of the road on the flood plain and stream since there was just not enough room. · Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Area B Study process builds in participation. It is not going to conclude and not reflect what is approvable by the City, County and the University. There will an advisory committee that will consist of staff and the Planning Commissioners that are on PACT and representatives of the area and there will be public meetings and there will be presentations to the Planning Commission foi' the City and County. This will not be outside of that venire. He stated that it would not be a cold study delivered to you to take action on. In summary: The Planning COmmission held a work session on ZMA-02-10, Sandy Lane Residential Village. The Planning Commission took no formal action. 'The applicant asked if there was a way that they could proceed with their zoning map amendment without the Area B Study being complete. It was the consensus of the Commission to agree with the staff's recommendation that no action take place until after the com pletion of the Area B Study and the other issues resolved. If the applicant would like to pursue a rezoning, the Commission' recommended 'that they incorporate mixed use and follow the recommendations of staff regarding the public road to serve the site. Work Session: 2003~04 - 2012/13 Capital Improvements Program - Overview. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, presented an overview of the FY 2003/04 - FY 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program and FY 2008-09 -.FY 2012/13 Capital Needs Assessment. The County's Capital Improvements Program serves as a planning guide for expenditures for major capital facilities and equipment. This incorporates a long-range capital need assessment and a multi-year planning process. The Planning Commission took no formal action. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1,2003 30 OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business to discuss. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business: PLANNING COMMISSION HAS NO ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to their next meeting on March 25, 2003. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 11,2003 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 1, 2003 31 PIEDMONT F~NVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty Statement to the Albemarle County Planning Commission Hollymead Towncenter, ZMA-01-18 and ZMA-01-19 March 11, 2003 Last week, the Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT held a public hearing here to discuss, among other issues, the solution to local traffic issues on 29 North. One thing that is clear is that there is little if any available state funding for improvements'to the 29 corridor in the.near future.. The recommended transportation improvements to facilitate these proposed rezon/ngs--recommendations rejected by both County and VDOT staff as inadequate--are estimated to cost in excess of $100-million. We have no 'idea~ when they might get implemented or who will pay. It is time for the state and local governments to recognize the critical relationship between land use planning and transportation planning. It is beyond comprehension that 29 north in Albemarle could become the widest highway in the state of Virginia and still fail to accommodate this proposed development. Something is wrong. The traffic study' submitted by the applicant suggests that due to the mixed-use characteristics of the Hollymead Towncenter it is receiving attention from Smart Growth advocates. Since the PEC is an advocate for smart' growth; let me clarify our interest. There is nothing smart about this project. The proposal before you is business-as-usual, big box development. So let's talk about smarter growth. There are many issues I could raise, but I'll highlight just a couple. The Growth Area corridor north of the 250 'bypass covers an area slightly larger than the City of Charlottesville. The City 'has over twice the population of this corridor, most of the region's jobs and a major University and hospital. There ,are no 8- lane highways in Charlottesville. None are needed. .These rezonings cover an area of approximately 90-acres. For comparison, the Downtown Mall area of Charlottesville covers approximately 100-acres and holds almost 3-million square feet of building space, approximately 5,000 parking spaces, parks, museums, the pedestrian mall and over 1 I-acres of vacan't lots waiting to be infilled. There are no highways; an interconnected system of streets facilitates the traffic. This is smart growth. A recent study from Arlington County discusses the profitability and fiscal value of comPact development. The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor generates 33% of that County's real estate tax revenue yet covers less than 8% of the County--about 1,200-acres. Since 1972, within this 1,200-acres, an area 1/6th the size of Albemarle's 29 North corridor, has been built over 15-million square feet of commercial space and over 9,000 housing units. Interestingly, Arlington's Corridor has absorbed this development "without the vehicle gridlock experienced in other areas." In fact, local traffic volumes on local and arterial streets has experienced only a modest increase in the last 15-years. How is this possible? If approvals ofrezoning requests are predicated on good land use and transportation planning, then the development community will respond with good plans. The current pattern of unfettered sprawl followed by costly transportation improvements that merely spawn more' low-density sprawl must be stopped. There is no rational explanation for the failure to recognize this cycle and realize how simple it is to }t'eadqua~ers /klbemarle Clarke I~oudotm Orange Rappahannock P.O. Box 460 1111 Rose Hill Drive 30 East Main Street 802 Children's Center Rd. S.W. 130 W. Main St., Ste. 206 12,717 Lee Highway ~\u'rcnn m, V.\ 20188 S,:h'c O~:c Berryville, VA 22611 Leesburg, VA 20175 P.O. Box 266 Washington, VA 22747 5.'t-0 34-7-233.1 Charlormsvil[e, \.2\ 229(13 540-955-9000 703-669-4990 Orange, VA 22960 540-987-9441 i.-'~'; 5.111-349 9003 804.977-2033 Fa~ 540~955-90~[0 Fax 703-669-2213 540-672-0141 F~x 540-987-9443 .lax 80 !:-977.6~06 Fax 5~0-672-6265 resolve. It's time to plan BEFORE we build. It's -time to get the adequate infrastructure in-place BEFORE the development, not after. Therefore, it is the position of the PEC that UNTIL the County .and State have developed and begun implementation Of a meaningful Regional Transportation Plan, these rezoning ;requests should be denied. Even were these proposals to represent ideal development, no land use decision should ever be made in absence of considering the transportation impacts of that development. No matter how welt designed, there is nothing smart about developm4nt that contributes to or exacerbates local congestion. We cannot solve sprawl with more sprawl. Jeff Werner, AICP 'Note: Italics inserts - corrections made at 3/11/02 hearing = 600' APRIL 03, 2000 mcz Arlington, Virginia's .osslyn ? Balis on Corridor . y ~,cnnis Leach ~ontext - he successful redevelopment of the two square mile low-density ammercial center of Arlington County, Virginia, used the orange ine Metrorail extension (an underground subway-line with five tosely spaced stations) as the catalyst for redevelopment and eonomic renewal. The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor is li~cated near center of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region. athe 1960's-1970's, the Rosslyn-Ballston COrridor waS charac- ~rized'by stable to' declining retail sales, a shrinking population, nd an exodus of family households due to the' effects -of rapid uburbanization of the surroundhag 'region. Department stores,- ther major retailers and grocery stores were closing and/or mOV- .ag to the newly developing suburbs. Between 1972 and 1980, the [-B Corridor lost over 11,000 residents or 36.4°/'0 of its popula- [on. Between 1970 and i980: the County as a whole lost over ;1,500 residents or oyer I2.4% of its popUlation(u8 Census, 1970, 980). This level of decline was onpar with many inner-city ar- ~he Intervention. leginning in the late 1960's, the County staffand elected officials ,egan an in, depth assessment of transit-oriented development :oncepts as a means of reshaping the County and its' economic ~rospects. After extensive community input, which continued'- nto the mid-1970's, the County apprOved ~.tation area and cord- lor boundaries, a capital improvement program and a land use/' levelopment framework for the Kosslyn-Ballston Corridor prior to the opening of the extension 0fthe Orange Line to Ballston in December of 1979 (see FigUre 2.for ~e Corridor Boundaries specified 'in the County staff's 1976 report). According to One long-time County resider~t,, the Coun..t7 be~ ..its fu:.~e On Metromil as a catalyst for redevelopment. At the time, this was a very gutsy and unproven strategy." ' _. ' The County developed a cle.ar set of~.n~s_'t~ortati6n and devel.op- ment principles that would'guide the rede;Celopment effort. For development, the emphaSis was on high.de.'nsit~ mixed use de- velopment at the Metr0rail statiohs tapei-ing down in height and bulk io establisi~e~l residential n~igh~Orh.9,.~i to be preserved -(referred to as the station bulls-eTe .cpg~ept)i with clear bound- aries for the redevelopment zones} an~'iilve~tment in neighbor- hood conservation in the adj acent'n0./'g~b0~lll)0ds. In transportation, the emphasis .was q~ mltim0dalism. First, the County attempted to maximize the use of transit in the Corridor by concentrating development within' a quarter mile of rail sta- tions and building sidewalk infrhstmcture to increase walking trips. Transit use w. as also supported by providing frequent local and feeder bus service. The Cognty maintained a network of streets to support redevelopment in the Corridoi and expanded' the network of facilities .for pedestrians and bicyclists. The park- ing requirements for dev. el0pment were.reduced to reflect the availability of viable' non-auto'Choices, and: trag., sportation de- mandmanagement programs Were iihasedin for both office' and . residential uses'. After creating this' deVelopment and tranSpor- tationframew0rk, the County stayed the course and continually ~vorked on refining the Plan with 6ngOing citizen involvement ' from the mid:1970's to the present. '. Results Market Commo'm inAxlington County, VA Photo by D_en~_'_s. Leach '-- Over this period,'the fommes of both the. Corridor and the County have been turned ar0unfl~ 'Poi~ulafi0n and gene[al economic de- dine were reversed and the.Corridor now produces 33.% 'of the County's real estaie tax revenue on only 7.6% of the land area. The. sheer amount of mixed-use development that has been con- centrated around transit stations is also .remarkable. Between I972 and 2001, there has been a net increase 0f0ver 15 million square feet of commer6ial space (offices, hotels and retail) and 9,139 housing units (Arlington County CPI-ID, 2002) (pleaSe re- fer to Figure 3 for Corridor~statistics). The resulting develop- ' ment pattern has yielded very tangible positive outcomes in crew' ating a more vibrant urban area and ~ontributes to lower c°n,. sumption of vacant land in the region. If the current develop- R-B.Corridor (Two square miles) Figure 1 Develo- )merit '.m the Rosslyn-Bhllston Corridor: 1972-2002 ~1972 (a) 1980'(b) ~ 1990 (b) · 2000 (b) Total Square Footage of Office Space .zt;880,000 ~ .6,661,000 13,909,500 ,.~ 17,950,200 18,323 964 ! 1~-~,9-~ Hotel Rooms ~ ,294, 2,177 ~ 2,748 ~ 3'~030 3,030 o.~lgofHousing Uni~ ,.L-. , .:13,400' 12,000~ ,Abbreviations: '- ' ' C = mmpleted, UC = under.Cons~ibn,'T = To~l Development to Date, * = da{a not available Sources:.. .. a. '] 972 R0~SJ~-Ballston Aitemative Land Use Pa~ms ~udy, Arlington Coun~ ~epaAment ?f Envimnmen~l- ~. '. -' Affai~Planning Division. ' ' b. Development in ~e Metro Condors 2000, Ad~n~on Coun~ Depadment 0f'~mmunity Planning,'Houging &'' DevelOpment- - : - . . c. Planting Infa~afion Repo~ 52, March 2002, A~in~on Coun~ De~adment of Communi~'~ian~[ng Hdu~ing & .Development . · . ; d. Arlington lsfQuader 2002 Development Tracing Repeal, Arlington Couh~ Depa~ent of commun~. plannihg, Housing & Development e. Compiled ~m sources listed in b, c, and d f. The au~ofs assumptions'based on inte~ie~ a review'of development ~a~sfics,-'and m~ Coun~.Poli~ changes such as C-O Rosslyn and a~able housing bonus'provisions which add dpyel~pmefit Capa~ g. Arlington Coun~ Depa~ent of Public Wor~ ~umma~ da~ deHv~ ~m the W~shing~n M~oPoli~n'Area Tr~sR 2001 (c). i 2002-[ i -h i Cor UC merit in the two square mile Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor were con- stmcted on vacant suburban 1.and using .standard development, densities, over 14 square miles would be used. In terms of tmr_tsportation system performance, ridership on Metrorail in the CorridOr-continues. to grow, even as the last of the all-day surface parking lots has beenredeveloped. Total daily 'trips stood at over 79,000 for an. average weekday as of May 2001 (WMATAAnnUal Ridership Survey, May 2001). This. increasing ridership has not come at the expense of bus trips, Bus ridership has also increased. Ridership at the two transit hubs inBallston & Rosslyn, stood at 16,300 and 4,370 trips re- corded respectively in 2002. Also, recent surveys of Metrorafl patrons at Ballston and Rosslyn stations show that the majority oflfatrons walked: 64.5% at Ballston and 76.7% ~t Ro-~slyn. At Ballsmn, another 16% arrived by bus or shuffle. At Rosslyn, 13.1% arrived by bus or shuttle (Arlington County DPW, 2002), Pedestrian counts also show high street crossing volumes, even moving several blocks away f~om the Metro station entrances. Looking at traffic volumes in-the Corridor, traffic on many of the local and arterial Streets has been relatively flat or shoWs very :modest increases over the last' 15 to 20 year'period.: The major exception to this pattern is the growth of vehicle~trips.on Inter-' state 66, which has a more regional function (trips not originating or destined for Arlington). As sUch;the Rossyln-B.allston Corri, dor has absorbed a tremendous amount of development with- out the vehicle gridlock experienced in other areas of the re- OUtstanding Issues : ' EcOnomic SUCcess has itrigger~d 'other issues-that have to be addressed if the C(;rddor is to'remain diverse and economically viable over the longtenn. The increasing .,attractiveneSs ofthe R-B Corridor andArlington'in general as ii,lace to live, has led to: a rapid ' AffOrdable hoUSin~is_:'a lng attention in the C0tm~y:' historic structures and is an0ther pressing issue giffon: and the s~arcity Of vacant: )"'- irm6Vati6/i th~ is re- quired to' address ,' remaining: David P. Bowerraan Lindsay G. Dottier, Scott.sville Charles S. Ma~n Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 August 21, 2003 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S, Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Ms. Jeanne Cox Clerk, Charlottesville City Council City Hall PO Box 911 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Jeanne: At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on July 16, 2003, it was the consensus of the Board to support the more traditional fa{:ade design for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court building. Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CM.C/ / /ewc Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Juvenile Court Facxade Design Options SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board direction in selection of the preferred design option for the new Juvenile Court fa(;ade. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, White BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: July 16, 2003 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS.: Y,~,~ REVIEWED BY: ~ As you know, plans for the renovation and expansion of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court building have been in the preliminary design phase for the past year under the oversight of a small committee, composed of a member from City Council and the Board of Supervisors, the City Manager and County Executive, and the Assistant City Manager and Assistant County Executive. A former City Council member, David Toscano, a member of the initial committee, has also remained on the committee past his term of office. The Committee completed its work on the interior design elements, as well as the parking deck and the courtyard design, but could not come to consensus on the most appropriate fa(;ade design, one being a more traditional fa(;ade and one a more modern approach. These two designs, which are attached, were presented for discussion and input at a public meeting on June 19th at the Juvenile Courthouse. Public comments were solicited, a copy of which will be e-mailed to you prior to Wednesday's meeting. Only one comment was received on the County's website, which was favorable to the more traditional design. DISCUSSION: The next step in this process is that the City will take the two design options to the BAR on Tuesday, July 15th for input and suggestions. The Committee will meet on Thursday, July 17th to review both the BAR suggestions and the public comments, and then, hopefully, make a decision to recommend one of the offered concepts or possibly recommend pursuing a third design option with the architect. Charles Martin, your committee representative, will not be able to be at Thursday's meeting and has therefore, requested that your guidance be solicited on the fa(;ade designs. Your stated preference between the two attached options will provide some guidance to both Mr. Tucker and Ms. White, for Thursday's committee meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction from the Board on their preference between the two design options for the Juvenile Court fa(;ade, the more traditional or the more modern approach as shown on the attachment. 03.089 Ci~ of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domes]to Relations Court Expansion Project Sketch of New Contextual High Street Fa(;ade without Portico City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project Extant High Street Fa(;ade City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project i New Contextual High Street Fa~;ade City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project New Contextua~ High Street Facade City of Charlottesville., County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project New Contextual High Street Fa(;ade City of Charlottesville o County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project New Contextual High Street Facade City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project New Contextual High Street Fa(;ade City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project New Historical High Street Fa~;ade City of Charlottesville · County of Albemarle Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Expansion Project I B.A.R. Meeting July 15, 2003 Courts Project Questions raised during presentation: · How will you handle windows/stairwell conflict on historical faqade? · Will visitors or court patrons have to stand orqueue outside the building? · Have we considered glass elevators in historic option? · What is the concern about extending porticO further out towards the street? Comments: Swanson: Very pleased and excited about work since last meeting; love skylight; intemal glass block; tight dimension; supports contextual design; Lynn: Disappointed that we have "obliterated" the old faqade; the facility is historic and this should not be'forgotten; our proposal, in effect, is a constructive demolition; why bother to retain rest of building?; rather see rehabilitatiOn of old faqade; referenced design criteria that recommends we should replicate old faqade when documentation or evidence of details exists; Atldns: Suggested wetry to move stairwell/elevator to some other part of building; referenced design criteria supporting replication of old faqade when details of original are known; referenced criteria that supports not falsely recreating old facade; Coiner: Seems awkward and unusual for Board to consider two designs; Never imagined that we would entertain anything but "traditional" design; Is decision not to retain old building faqade final? Answer: yes. · Knight: Sympathetic to process, but Design Committee should keep open mind; not particularly in favor of keeping old faqade; is encouraged by direction of modem facade; this is a "streetscape" building and should be differential to courthouse; seems to be some "redundancy" in front stair design - may need to redesign to create more space in front of building; courtyard is largely "view corridor" - not convinced this is good use of space; valuable as view corridor, but may give us some more flexibility; Lewis: Questioned Knight's comment re J&DR as "streetscape" building and argued for importance of building; commented on "sad" statement that caseloads haVe increased so much; lack of portico is "absolute loss"; "children stand and wait on front steps without privacy; front steps/entrance should be welcoming; portico should shelter patrons from elements; need place for people to meet/conference; if we have to do bookends, loose balcony; consider day portico to walking, if necessary (can't make sense of this)~ would like not to loose old faqade; could not support modem design; Atkins: Modem design is superior - with respect to elevator, with respect to portico options; prefers brick lintel to tie bookends together; portico would crowd street; should explore glass on faqade; transparency of old faqade is a good idea; · Swenson: Try to keep old building faqade; encouraged portico. · Atkins: Brick treatment should be more subtle; Lynn: commented on consistency of Board decisions - we would not allow someone on park street to change facade; modem design does not work; · Knight: Does not fully advocate either design, but supports contextual more; urged simplicity; · Lynn: encouraged us to pole other absent Board member re their opinion based on packet of information; · Questions asked of Mary Joy re demolition of faqade - will this require demolition permit/approval by Board? July 15~ 2003 BAR Discussion of J&DR Court Building NOTE: This is not an official transcription but is taken from personal notes - Mary Joy Scala BAR members present: Heetderks, Atkins, Coiner, Knight, Lewis, Swenson. Absent: Fenton, Ewing, Tremblay. Also present were the architect, Fiol-S!lva, City Councilor Cox, and City staff members Scala, Peacock, and Letteri. Fiol-Silva gave a power point presentation that focused on the facades. Swensom Pleased and excited about the work done'since the last meeting. Love the skylight and notion of revealing the old faCade. Understand he is working with a tight dimensi°n [between the building and the street]. Internal "courtyard" helps provide more space. Excellent step in the process. Heetderks: Disappointed- moved from respecting faCade to obliterating facade. Need to not forget historic structure. It is over 100 years old. [Referenced BAR discussion regarding addition to front of Mono Loco restaurant - the BAR did not approve a version that obliterated their fa¢ade.] This is a demolition - would prefer rehabilitation of original building. She cited guidelines from staff report 4.2 (5) and 4.2 (6). Atkins: The [preserved] jail figures into the composition of the block. The .courtyard is a tremendous asset. Powerful move to take the elevator and stair off the side and move them to the front. Proposal is a comphcated mix. Need to unplug the divisiveness of contemporary/historic debate. Sympathize with opinion that old fafade is being covered by new fagade. However, it is necessary to make a comprormse - either Option A - compromise the building by ameliorating the massing problems in the best way possible [moving the elevator/stair to front] or Option B - compromise the workings of the building by including the elevator/stair in the existing building. We are all .making choices. Higher functionality in how the court works - don't get bogged down in contemporary/historic debate. Three crucial Secietary of Interior Standards that' are pertinent.to adding on: # 3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. # 6 Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. 'Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. # 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related.new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated form the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. This building has lost its roof and portico, but belittling to whole commattee to come in with A and B. Coiner: New role for BAR to choose between 2 elements. Never imagined other than traditional design. Swenson: Is restoration of original facade still a viable option? Fiol-Silva: One certainty or critical juncture - that point where something had to give. Short answer: not on the table. Heetderks: After the decision was made to cover up the existing facade, why didn't they decide to demolish the whole building and start over? Fiol-Silva: The building is sound. Peacock: The committee never discussed tearing it down. After the fire not many elements remain. Swenson: Understand why not putting elevator/stair on the side- integrity of jail behind and obscured view. Fiol-Silva: Putting it on the side adds another bay and other issues. Putting it on the front tempered by positive things. The courtyard is an asset. The County agreed to build more. parking to make the courtyard p. ossible. Knight: Concerned about original facade issues - we are now talking about almost completely obscuring it. Have sympathy for the process to date. It is well within our bounds to ask steering committee to keep an open mind regarding the original fagade. Not our place to ask them to reconsider decisions/open a can of worms especially since so little of the original faCade remaining. Not wild about restoring fagade - would be a watered down, pallid version due to monetary concerns. I am trying to look at this as a response to what is being brought to us. Based on that, I am not at all happy with the fish-or-fowl nature of the facades -must be more than 100 shades of gray. I do like the direction - continuing evolution of modem contextual design. Transparency is encouraging. A couple of thoughts: 1. This is a "streetscape building" - a background building - should be deferential to the main courthouse on the square. Needs to take more cues from other buildings on High Street- they have green space in front (which may not be necessary). Some elements shown may or may not be necessary - large set of stairs - 20 ft. wide frontal approach - but 'everyone enters from one side or the other on High Street. Might be an opportunity to buy back some land between the facade and the street by rethinking the stairs. Courtyard is largely a "view court" - question functionality of use - not sure will ever become a "people space" ~/s Lewis mentioned - out of earshot. Sunken space, out of action, not truly used by people but valuable as a view court. Does that give us more flexibility in terms of design of front, to treat it like a view court. If we are thinking as a functional space, the main way into the courtyard is on the west side- also need access on the east side of the courtyard? Fiol-Silva: The entrance to the courtyard matches the crosswalk on High Street and the park walk, "walk of the condemned." HC ramp is the main issue for determining the entrance location. Think people will use the courtyard to eat lunch., etc. Cox: Trying to add value to the jail - also, courtyard used by people in jailer's house. Knight: What is being asked of us as a Board? 2 Letteri: We think two facades represent the best solutions. Give direction, we anticipate further iterations of either design. Fiol-Silva: A lot of things have fallen in place. Want unequivocal direction one way or other. We want to know what the BAR will approve. Lewis: Glad there was a public fomrn, great input, but just received packet on Monday so difficult to comment. I am very excited about the court project. I look at fagade functionally: This court has seen an increase of cases over and above all the other courts. It serves the whole 16~ judicial circuit, including outlying counties. I see building differently - lack of portico is an absolute loss. Shallow portico not serving needs. Children wait on the front porch now; waiting for relatives, attorneys. I would hope the front would be welcoming. Need a portico to screen them from the elements. Need more depth in the portico. Need to address the street. Wish the elevator/sta/r could be scaled down - 5 ft. higher than buildirig, they look tike horns. The existing building has beautiful fan arches, articulation on the front that is being covered. Makes it even worse adding the homed look. Can't bookends be sunken down? Shorter portico put on them? Need covered space, need plenty of space for meeting far from the adversarial party. There are only two witness rooms. Normal docket calls are stacked up - 20 or 30. Need places to talk briefly before court. Hope they keep witness rooms; attorneys and clients need privacy. Judge may say to make a choice - need portico and witness rooms to discuss. There is a big difference between the proposed recessed space and a portico with room on each side. I would not want to talk with a balcony overhead. People want to get away from bailiff area. The front should welcome the public. Focus on function, not design. If you are enclosing the front area, why keep the balcony? Creates a dark space. Preference to build a portico out to the sidewalk with nicely scaled columns; perhaps lower it, rather than build a 2-story portico. Wish elevator/stair could go elsewhere but deference to process. In complete agreement with others who do not want original.fa~ad~ to go away, but don't know what solution is. The modem facade does not refer to any existing architecture in Charlottesville or in the Court Square area. Ask the architect to incorporate the BAR's comments. Peacock: When we have the transcript we will share it with the architect and the steering committee. Judges were involved in the programming- they noted the increase in court use. Witness rooms were decided upon. Locations not taken lightly. Fiol-Silva: Questions are music to our ears. All of the things you have pointed out have been discussed, including in the front the difficulty of not having optimal queuing areas. Atkins: I talked about framing approach to discussion, a historic facade is the reconstruction of the original portico. The contextual response is adding the elevator/stair to the front. Decision-making is not about two styles- about adding elevator/stair to front. The contextual response is superior on several levels. The Secretary of Interior Standards speak to lack of pilasters and fake windows. Would recommend a plainer brick surface articulation; largest and deepest opening possible, and an intermediate zone of rain protection. 3 One reservation - have you accounted for the 12 ft. overrun of the elevator. {Fiol-Silva responded he had.] Prefer breaking down the mass of the building with the broken lintel. Shelter- agree with architect. Setback issue - setting out further a mistake. Should explore other window openings -use of glass 10 ft. away from openings in elevator and stair. Lighten up the facade. Can use more expensive 1 hour-rated fire glass. There is room for adding transparency. Agree with direction you are taking -. adding transparency to reveal existing faqade. Swenson: This is complex issue - also the children using the building - the elevator and stair issue. Grateful the court is staying downtown. Hope courtyard is refined to accommodate child and family needs, soften the atmosphere. I don't know what the scale of the interior space is like don't know ho~v big the children are - grown in size? Children require words of welcome and friendliness, key to further articulation. Keep the essence of the old building- detail will give scale to the interior space. Don't know about the balcony. Ifbalcony is useful, intimate space to talk? [Lewis: It will be used by the judges.] If balcony is not a gathering space, then it is not important. Love skylight. Hope that a portico is not ruled out. Atkins: Agree. Minor point - indented brick in new facade - commend that, but should not become a graphic device particularly on the bands on the sides at top - subtlety is the answer. Heetderks: Need to apply guidelines consistently. This is inappropriate adaptive reuse. Many historic buildings are white elephants, but in attempts to accommodate applicants we approve projects that destroy historic resources. The purpose of the BAR is to protect the City's historic resources. BeCause I have a problem with the whole premise - I would vote against putting an addition on the front. It is not a historical facade as proposed - only the original faqade is historical. You cannot create a historic building. This is trying too hard to be historical. The contemporary design is nice but a contemporary building does not belong on Court Square. Will this require an application for a partial demolition ? Fiol-Silva: How close to the street is appropriate? Atkins: Explore looking' at raked brick joints as you go up interior stair [expose the existing fafade]. Knight: Not happy with A or B, but think the contextual modem design is closer to C than fake historical. Could not support fake historical - it is not the original faqade. Since the original fagade is off · the table, I am not as concerned with covering up what remains of the facade. It is not particularly outstanding or historical in itself. Caution against pulling elements off the front - rather see it as s. imple as possible, background, not the courthouse of Court Square. Lewis: This is not a background building, the faCade is not gone. Knight: .urge simplicity. Don't pull dements off the front and make them sculptural. Heetderks: Three members are not here tonight - you may contact them individually. Lewis: I think we are demolishing the faCade, which approval is subject to criteria. 4 Coiner: Asked about a brick wall he heard could be taken down. Concern about the process for that; the fact that it was addressed as a given. Letteri: It was a recent addition, a shed added to the old jail. Asked Historical Society, saw no support for keeping it. [Will need approval for its demolition.] Peacock: Removing the shed from the design decreased the building addition by one floor. Acknowledge it needs to be a part of the whole apphcation. Heetderks: if the mansard roof were replaced, would it add space? Fiol-Silva: No, it was a false roof. The building is historic for its age, not its craftsmanship. 'The Elks wanted it to be large and imposing. Understand that urban design and public architecture is a political process but this evening is disconcerting. Atkins: You have demonstrated patience, intelligence, tremendous skill. Our job is to look at he two facades. Cannot do that without legitimate historic responses. It is in our purview - it makes sense in that context. Lewis: Regarding the bookends, is that the minimum space required to accommodate the elevator and stair? [Architect responded yes - there is room near the elevator for duetwork but the stair will be a pubhc stair.] Heetderks: I encourage the BAR members to contact the architect or staffwith further comments. END 5 o J&DR Court Community Meeting June 19, 2003 Written Comments I support the idea of creating a building that reflects significant values of buildings in this historic area but still represents a new style so I would prefer something like the 'contextual evolution' one, although I'd like to see more details. --- skylight and open glass area allowing people to see original faCade is very important --- I don't like the narrow columns. My first preference would be to recreate the original Elks building, and also keep the jail. I like what Kevin Lynch and Ken Schwartz said. The idea of building more parking by digging down one more (level) sounds positive. Jean Hiatt, Rugby Avenue Has there been any dialogue about the Court Services Unit and the need to be placed in an accommodating place within the courthouse? As of today.., families have difficulty coming from one building to the next and it's an inconvenience. If the CSU remains in the Preston Morris building, will there be an addition to the building to house our intake dept? Personally, I like the traditional look! - Ms. Leslie Pryor (?), Probation Officer, 16th Dist. CSU Look at parking structure next to Martha Jefferson Hospital. It blends in with the neighborhood. The modem design is just not attractive. Go with the traditional. The traditional is not faux historic, it is_historic. The building was built at the turn of the century. Putting a modem faCade on it would disrespect the original historicism. Build a 4th parking level deeper in ground. -- The modem design is better. -- The modem design offsets the jail better. -- If you do the traditional building, add more depth dimension. -- Build the building now - the fagade later. Don't hold up the whole project. -- Oliver Kuttner Since there is no other spot in the city so historically preserved, keep it consistent with historic period of 1800's. Make the parking available to tourist or general public on weekends and for limited hours during weekdays. - Mark Beliles, chairman of the Charlottesville Historic Resources Committee - Contextual evolution - take this direction but much simpler. -- Closer to Saarinen for instance Kahn not so heavy handed. -- Traditional fagade looks like false front -definitely not the way to go. -- Planning works well. Like courtyard. - Tim Mohr The historic design is better for the area. It looks less massive, partly because o£the many vertical lines. Also the total height is hidden somewhat by the "molding" along the top. I like the column on the side. A small "roof" over door is desirable. Concern is that lowest level parking allows cars to pass down 4th St., into neighborhood. Could this street be one-way north of the parking building? I like the courtyard and the view down to the jail. A "modem" glass building is no good. - Brace Saunders, 521 Park Plaza I like the idea of modem but the porch on the current design looks like a 1950's bus station you can do better. How about memorial columns in a modem design in like Robert Venturi's Sainsbury Wing on the National Gallery in London - a hint of something old but not a copy - material is very important too. The existing modem design is just too heavy- the traditional is as well - it makes too bi~ a statement. Keep it simple -- 10. -- I support the development of the modem design -- I have sent a letter to City Council explaining my reasons -- Edward Ford, erf2x(d~3_~virginia, edu 11. Traditional design much better in context. Now let's move on with the project. 12. Generally, I love modem design and the "modem" building is beautiful. However, it does not belong within the context of the city block where it resides. It does not go with the Court Square area- the most historic area in the whole city. Place the modem building a few blocks away - no problem - but "modem" has no place in Court Square. This is like putting a "modem" structure in the middle of Colonial Williamsburg. If the "modem" building is built, people will complain about it forever - it will be the "white elephant" of C-ville. It is too different for this location. 13. Prefer the contextual response. Would enhance the transparency to view the retained fagade. Would also suggest removing the columns to enhance the transparency. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Some sun screening on exterior is important. Skylights over the lobby would improve that experience upon entry. - Chris Hays The false historicist building is an impossibility. Dishonesty and false reality cannot be a part of our modem judicial system. Please make the best building you can - get out of STYLE and retire the design to make it work on all levels. No! to the modem design bad Bauhaus. The historic design "bookends" - seem detached from the remainder of the building. Could the width and lines of the entablature be continued down the sides - especially the highest cap. Thank you for keeping the old jail and the jailer's house. Parking garage does not have to be unsightly - investigate the one in downtown Deadwood, SD. - Eldon Wood, AIA I prefer a contextual design that extends rather than mimics the historical building of Court Square. Mark Saunders, 419 4th St. NE "history" is not simply a point in the past. It is today ~- tomorrow, too. Let the streetscape reflect the modem day. - I vote for contextual. Cathy Harding I sincerely hope the contemporary version is chosen, albeit as a more refined version. I believe the contemporary one expresses the fact that the community engages the present as well as shows respect & sympathy for the past. Warren Boeschenstein, Fendall Ave. Pursue the continuing evolution of the "contextual model." We have an opportunity to set a precedent for respecting our historic resources while shaping our future as an evolution respecting a vision, for the 21st century. No specific comments or questions, but I really appreciated learning about the degree of thought and consideration on the architects' part on the design process. I really like the courtyard idea and opening up the view to the jail. P.S. I like the modem one. * What is the actual use of parking facility use policy for public use - is it 24 hour accessible? * Is it desirable to put parking on fringe of Court district - will these spaces serve these other courts adequately (walking distances, etc.)? * How many additional trips per day anticipated on 4th Street NE/Hedge St. associated with the parking spaces accessed through 4th St. NE? Won't this be doubling or tripling the current counts? * What changes will occur to 4th St. NE? Will there be fewer than the current -13 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. unregulated parking spaces? Those are used by local residents, business owners, and shoppers at Wine Shop/other neighborhood stores. * Where will the bicycle racks be placed (how many would be the right # for - 130 spaces)? Will there be possible access for public transit nearby? Let's not lock into autos only. * Is it possible to integrate energy-generating materials (photo-voltaics) in the project as an opportunity to use south-facing orientation for building energy conservation? -- Peter Kleeman (407 Hedge St, 296-6208, ptk@x.frginia, edu I prefer a classical design in keeping with the historic character of our community and Court Square. I disagree that a "new" court must look modem because to make it look classical somehow undermines appreciation for truly old buildings. When Jefferson designed his buildings, they were modem, but harkened back to the beautiful designs of Palladio and the Greeks. He turned to those models because of their widely accepted beauty. By contrast, I find most "modem" court buildings like our own Federal Court on W. Main. I don't like the architects "contextual evolution" nearly as much as the "stylistic replication" model. Go with the older look. - Garrett Smith I prefer the traditional but perhaps it's a little too "historic." The contemporary has a very peculiar porch and columns. The fagade is OK. I don't think the balcony on the old building is something that is worth preserving ~- showcasing. It's ugly. Julie Coiner Comments: I am still concerned about the impact of+/- 60 more cars or traffic on 4th St. Radius ~ Hedge & 4th permits fast speeds on the mm. Perhaps traffic calming measures to slow the speed of cares in our neighborhood would mitigate the impact of additional parking. Don't object to more modem (but contextual) design. Prefer version without columns. Like integration of stone but rendering make the building appear too massive in comparison with the other buildings. Still needs tweaking but promising direction. Thanks for listening to our concerns with the previous proposal. - Mary Hughes, 310 Hedge St. Need to change the facade to keep a traditional appearance, especially if we underground utilities in Court Square ~- change the pavement to brick or imitation brick. It seems very important for this project to be presented for discussion with the B.A.R. for their insight and feedback. I am surprised that the committee and architects have not engaged them (the BAR) in this discussion akeady. - Ken Schwartz 27. I like the footprint but don't like either exterior. I think the exterior should not mimic the original, but a new addition should be more sensitive to the look of the street. The new exterior is not compatible with the street. It should have gone to BAR earlier as part of the preliminary. They should have seen the exterior. It would be good to call a meeting of the BAR before the decision is made - we could probably do it before next regular meeting. Joan Fenton 28. I am concerned that this process has become an opportunity for the BAR to dictate the more modem design w/nearly explicit threats that the more traditional approach surely cannot pass BAR muster. If that is accurate, then the process has become thoroughly unprofessional. There is no question that the overwhelming majority of local residents in Charlottesville and Albemarle will prefer a more traditional approach. No question. 29. Traditional!!!! Please start the renovation!! --- Jody Pachaso, Deputy Clerk, Juvenile Court 30. Court Square is the most historical portion of the City. The courthouse should be traditional-historical. Not modem which looks like a mausoleum. It is ugly and not appropriate. Do the historical-stylistic. What about parking. 69 additional spaces are not enough. Jim Camblos 31. I like the stylistic replication. Ed Robb 32. 1. Strong preference for stylistic replication. 2. What is the time frame for moving Court staff to alternate location. What does the interior look like? i.e. offices. - Judge Dwight Johnson 33. Traditional. Don't let me retire before this is started. - Alice Waddy, J&DR Court Comments Received from C'ville Website 1. From: Richard Deloria [mailto:RDELORIA@albemarle.org] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:28 AM To: Bunch, Kenneth Subject: JDR Renovation Dear Sir or Madam: I offer the following observations regarding the Traditionalist and Modern design concepts for the JDR Courthouse renovations. First and foremost, the design should respect the building's purpose as a busy courthouse serving private parties, witnesses, defendants, law enforcement officers and attorneys. I understand that in the evenings it serves educational purposes also. Common wisdom holds that many cases are settled on the courthouse steps. That belief is held with good reason: most are. And much more business is conducted on the courthouse steps. What is sorely missing from the present facility is what it had at its original inception: a portico. The uncovered porch presently receives much use. The Albemarle Circuit Court portico receives much use. The renovated JDR building should likewise have a covered area where litigants, counsel and others can conduct business as has traditionally been done. Conference rooms, entrance halls, the clerk's office will not accomodate the volume. For this reason, I favor the traditional design over the modern design. For aesthetic reasons I favor the traditional design. First, the modern design is uninspired. It does not look like a courthouse. It looks like 1960's civic architecture built on the cheap. If contemporary/modern is the preference, then make it inspiring. Secondly, if concern over creating convincing but false historic buildings is the guiding principle, then why not tweak the design so that it truly is a renovation reflective of the original design of the building? Holsinger's photograph of the building as the Elk's Lodge in 1916 is readily available on-line. http://mcgregor.lib.virginia.edu/Holsinger/FMPro?-db=holsinger&- format=detail.html&lay=lis!t&Keyword=elks%201odge&%5bsearch%5d=do%20not%20care &-max=10&-recid=43909&-find=. Interstingly enough, that design incorporated an open field leading to the jailer's house and the historic jail. It included columns and a portico done in a classical style. Such a renovation would not create false history, but would restore true, fitting history to Court Square and Downtown Charlottesville. Can the design team go beyond pigeon hole architecture and perhaps combine elements of traditionalism and contemporary architecture to create a compelling structure? UVa's Law School accomplished just that with its recent additions. Fluvanna County incorporated Greek Revival elements taking a cue from its historic Circuit Courthouse) into its design of a modern court complex that commands respect from those who use the facility. Charlottesville & Albemarle should be able to do the same. Finally, it seems the modern design does not fit in with the long-term plans for Court Square. I understand power lines will be moved underground, traditional street lighting will be installed, and the roads surrounding the square will be paved in brick or cobblestone. A more traditional design strikes me as being more consistent with that vision than the modern design. Colonial Williamsburg seems to have found success using that formula. I suspect the long-term plans for Court Square are intended to attract tourists and increase business. Although the courthouse design must serve the purposes of the legal community, it can also do so in a manner consistent with intended renovations and improvements for the area. The Albemarle County Circuit Courthouse, including the complementary traditional General District Court addition, may be the crowning glory for Downtown Charlottesville, but it is not all that draws tourists downtown and it certainly does not keep them there for long periods of time. It is the complete downtown environment that does so. The JDR courthouse renovations should work within that reality. If I must vote, I choose the traditional design. I prefer the facade be returned to its original state as documented by Holsinger. If a modern design is selected, please make it inspiring and render it useful from a practical perspective by including a portico of sorts. These are my thoughts. Thank you for allowing the public to comment. Richard DeLoria 1315 Mosby's Reach Albemarle County 2. From: Kyle Copas [mailto:kcopas@earthlink.netl Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 8:16 PM To: Bunch, Kenneth Subject: Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court schemes This is a quick note in response to the request for public comment on WRT's schemes for the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court. Please don't go down the path of the colonial Williamsburg artifice. The McGuire Woods building ought to be all the evidence one needs to recognize that the "historical" quality of Court Square is tenuous at best. Seriously, could anyone not acknowledge the need to shield most of the viewshed surrounding the court's site to make the "traditional" scheme seem anything other than a perilous illusion. Serve the needs of the community first, and for goodness' sake, have the good sense to select the contemporary scheme. An historicist approach in this setting will only serve to trivialize what the truly historical qualities of the area does possess. Thanks for the opportunity to provide one man's opinion. Best regards, Kyle Copas 811 Druid Ave. 3. From: Grove, Kathy [mailto:KGrove@McDonough.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:33 AM To: Bunch, Kenneth Subject: courthouse comments Dear Sirs: It is in the best interests of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albermarte to favor a modern design for the new courts building project. The proposed historicist scheme does nothing to advocate for our vibrant, contemporary community and does not reflect current building practices. Instead it is a unfortunate attempt to reference historical style and building practice by blindly copying from the past; in fact it detracts from the wonderful historical buildings already in place. The beauty and value of the original Courthouse and other structures around the Square will be diminished by anything less than a design that reflects the present state of architecture and construction practices. Please do not destroy our built heritage and diminish its power and presence. Imitation in the arts is not the sincerest form of flattery. Katherine Grove, AIA 1024 Sheridan Ave Charlottesville, VA 22901 4. From: Hunter McCardle [mailto:hmccardle@nelson-byrd.com] Sent: Monday; June 30, 2003 11:18 AM To: Bunch, Kenneth Subject: Juvenile Court House I would like to express my opinion in regards to the Juvenile Court House Design. I think that Charlottesville, a town filled with talented architects, would benefit from new and innovative designs that don't try to replicate the past. The modern version of this design builds off of the existing structure while creating a new and fresh approach to how buildings in this area can be perceived and experienced. Let's move beyond brick and white columns and show how Charlottesville can embrace the past, but look into the future. Thanks - Hunter McCardle s. From: Maggie Beights [rnailto:maggiebeights@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:59 AM To: Bunch, Kenneth Subject: Court Design This is Charlottesville, Virginia. It is only fitting for it to be the historical design. Maggie Beights 6. From: Charles Hendricks [mailto:charleshendricks@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, ~luly 06, 2003 5:50 PM To: Jones, Maurice Subject: juvenile and domestic court design I have recently returned to Charlottesville and have not heard all the discussion about the new courthouse design. What I have heard centers on the two facades presented on your website. As a new member of this historic community I would encourage you to look to the future in the buildings being proposed in this architecturally rich town. I think the "modern design" sets the stage for future growth of this community and encourages a healthy growth of its architectural legacy that is so rich today. The historical design would encourage the disneyfication of the architecture of this town. Charles Hendricks 7. From: Wilkes, Kenneth T [mailto:KTW8B@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu] Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 1:27 PM To: Jones, Maurice Subject: Design concepts I was a passer-by on the web page but as a citizen of c'ville wanted to make a comment about the two design concepts. I think the historical look is the way to go. It will blend nicely into the community as it matches more closely the architecture already established. There is something to be said for being modern and progresive in charlottesville but I do not feel this modern building design is the way to do it. I can see the modern design becoming outdated very quickly. As its newness wears off it does not have the aesthetic appearance to maintain it as an appealing structure. I hope this inupt is helpful. I hope to see the historical based architecture erected soon. Sincerely, Trevor Wilkes LP Notes from J&DR Court Community Meeting June 19, 2003 Kevin Lynch: Sally Thomas: design? Jim Camblos: Peter Kleeman: All parking spaces being built on fringe of court district - explain new spaces. Oliver Kuttner: Really clever; keep detail combined w/modem should be okay. Really great move in right direction. Re: Peter Kleeman's parking comment - "no parking downtown". Waldo Jaquith: Restrictions on parking? After hours parking? Net new parking spaces? Are there any historic tax credits contemplated that would restrict the How can you shrink 1 floor and not give up any essential space? 300 spaces needed; only added 60 spaces? Answered: larger building because of elimination of addition qn jail wall- wider footprint. Judge Johnson: Interior plans? Answered: not changed since last meeting with Judges. Lee Lee Lawless: Building wider? Answered: only addition is wider than originally proposed. Jim Camblos: How much wider? Answered: 12' wider. David Repass: Here in C'ville, glass is expensive, especially in summer. Overabundance of columns in C'ville. Maybe compromise between the two. Mark Rhinelander: The modem building could embody principles of classical, e,g., symmetry. Answered by Antonio. Ed Ford: Modem fagade superior. Glass about the same in both buildings. Frank Buck: Chair of the Bar Association. Voted 97-3 in favor of the traditional. Cited the tradition of Court Square, the precedent of law. Traditional more appropriate. Problems with modem design in context is that basically working on fagade only as opposed to dynamic movement of building. Doesn't fit w/context and community. Ken Schwartz: Sec. of Int. Standards don't apply only to those projects using tax credits. They're used to determine appropriateness by BARs across the nation. Maurice Cox: BAR has adopted Sec. of Int. Standards. "Would help tremendously to send something to them ..." Kevin Lynch: Architectural standards are somewhat a facetious argument both versions violate Interior Standards. Uncomfortable accepting design that he has to be talked into. Rob Schilling: To say that one not valid because of federal regulations is disingenuous. Mary Gat Caperton: Modem one marriage of two things columns look like '50's bus station and remainder too heavy. Jim Camblos: Not so sure you can't rebuild fafade; modem fagade not appropriate for here. At some point Alb. Co. going to grow so large it will have to move out of the City. Joan Fenton: Explained process - one guideline that is strong what block looks like. BAR has looked at footprint and courtyard; has not looked at facades. Can building on left (contextual) be made to be more traditional? Traditional looks so much like built in older period - more difficult for BAR to approve. Need something that is clearly not an old building. Chris Hays: When you can really appreciate history is when you can see various periods of architecture represented. What we were going 200 years ago, we're doing today. Keep going and see what can be done on contextual design. Mark Beliles: Appreciate efforts to preserve jail; historic mentality in design is important; Court Square beautification to begin next month. Keep feel with character of square - historic character. Dave Chapman: Is all handicapped parking all the way back on the parking deck? Maybe there should be a handicapped space on the street. Oliver Kuttner: Spend money and go down 1 more level on garage; charge for parking (doubles for public parking). Preston Coiner: Look at more modem concept has slowed process down; not sure good for building or for community to change direction mid-stream (didn't understand when WRT brought in). Sally Thomas: Though goal was to have building so striking that it didn't take over Court Square, be more reverential, contextual building very striking (too striking) don't think we want a very striking building in that context. This location doesn't call for a striking building. ??: Commend both designs - lot of confidence that can come up with design that works (prefers more contextual). Curious about garage detail. Sheila Haughey: Voted for more classical, but hadn't seen renderings of presentation. Great value in having some covered area in front. Main concern not with fagade concerned with inside and how it works. Catharine Harding: Intrigued by discussion of history with respect to stylistic interpretation. 100 years from now, will we be implicitly telling people walking down the street that we don't want to show the architecture of 2003 or 19977