Loading...
1978-03-30NMarch 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at 8:00 P.M. on March 30, 1978 in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 29, 1978. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorri~r, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 8:08 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher requested a moment of silent meditation. Agenda Item No. 2. Site Plan. Appeal of conditions placed on the Charlottesville Fashian Square Mr. Fisher summarized the reason for the meeting tonight as being a request by the applicant to review the decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17-7-6 of the Zoning ©rdinance. He stressed the point that the purpose of the meeting was not to approve or disapprove this site plan, but only to decide on the conditions which would be imposed. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr. Tucker to make his presentation. Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report. "Location: Zoning: Acreage: Southeast corner of Route 29 North and Rio Road B-1 Business and Planned Community (commercial) Approximately 57 acres Proposal Three major department stores and approximately 80 small stores will be served by an enclosed pedestrian mall. Department store "C" will contain two levels; the other stores and the mall will be one level. Total proposed area of the stores is 593,638 square feet. This may be compared to Barracks Road Shopping Center (including North Wind) with 480,000 square feet; Albemarle Square with 187,499 square feet; and Shoppers World with 135,677 square feet. The Regency Mall in Richmond contains about 843,088 square feet. Two possible future stores are indicated, and a possible future parking deck. These items are not a part of this approval, and will require a site plan amendment at a later date. Also, an out-parcel of approximately two acres is being reserved for future use. Parking is proposed for 3,397 cars. The circulation of traffic on the site will be directed by a circumferential road on the perimeter of the parking areas, and an inner road adjacent to the mall. These two roads overlap at each end of the mall. Four entrances are proposed; two on Route 29 North and two on Rio Road. The major entrance from Route 29 North will be located opposite Shoppers World at the present Skibo Lodge site. Based on figures in the applicant's traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates, at the peak highway hour (4:30 - 5:30 ~.m.) in 1979, this entrance is expected to carry about 56% of the entering and about 53% of the existing traffic to and from the site. This entrance will primarily handle cars coming from and exiting to the south. The second entrance on Route 29 is located opposite the Oldsmobile dealership at an existing crossover. It is expected to.carry about 20% of the entering and about 27% of the exiting traffic. This entrance will handle most of the northbound cars exiting the site and most of the southbound cars entering the site. The main entrance serving Rio Road is located opposite an entrance to Albemarle Square. It is expected to carry about 21% of the entering and about 14% of the exiting traffic. When Rio Road is relocated to connect to Mc~ntire Road, it is expected that this entrance will become more important, handling more left turns entering the site from Rio Road. The second entrance on Rio Road is located between Centel and the Aldersgate Church. It is expected to carry about 3% of the enter±ng and about 6% of the exiting traffic. No crossover is proposed, so only right hand turns each way will be permitted. Staff is recommending that the proposed Branchlands local collect0r connect to Rio Road at this location as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The Plan recognizes this area for commercial use. As noted above, the Compre- hensive Plan proposes a residential collector from Michie Drive in the City through Branchlands Planned Community and connecting to Rio Road. Staff ~mment The staff has reviewed this plan for compliance with Article 17, Site Develop- ment Plan, and other pertinent ordinances. In staff opinion, four areas of concern need to be addressed: March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) 1. Drainage and grading; 2. Branchlands Planned Community; 3. Interior circulation; 4. Virginia Department of Highways .and Transportation recommendations. Staff has Prepared comment on each of these items, and has recommended conditions of approval as follows: Drainage and Grading The site drains into Meadow Creek. Most of the site drains into an existing stream on the southeast corner of the site, which then carries the water through Branchlands into Meadow Creek. A small portion of the site in the vicinity of the National Bank drains into an existing culvert which carries the water across Route 29 near Berkmar Drive. Below DominiOn Drive, it is carried back across Route 29 through Branchlands into Meadow Creek. Staff concurs with the County Engineer's requirement to detain storm runoff from the site, possibly by means of a pond on the adjacent property. A preliminary grading plan is shown on the site plan. The parking is on~a 5% slope in most areas. Retaining walls are planned along Rio Road along the eastern boundary, and at the main entrance along a parking area. Approval of the site plan does not include approval of the grading plan which will be subject to review by the Soil Erosion Control Committee. Branchlands Planned Community Ten acres of this site are included in the Branchlands Planned Community. Since this is the first section of Branchlands to be submitted as a final plan, the conditions of approval attached to that Special Use Permit must be met. Staff has received an opinion from the County Attorney regarding the use of part of Branchlands for the shopping mall. Staff opinion is that this final plan is in compliance with the Branchlands proposal. Interior Circulatian Staff has prepared an overlay showing the following recommended changes in circulation: 1. The circumferential road and the inner road should be delineated by means of raised curb'or islands for traffic safety and ease of circulation. 2. The entrance opposite Shoppers World should be modified to give entering traffic the right-of-way, and to prohibit entering traffic from turning left onto the circumferential road. Exiting traffic coming from both directions on the circumferential road should be given the right-of-way. Exiting lanes should be pulled away from entering lanes. This arrangement would insure that ~entering traffic would not back up onto Route 29, exiting traffic would not block the circumferential road, and entering traffic would be encouraged to park in the rear of the Site. 3. The entrance opposite Albemarle Square should be modified by adding two islands and adjusting lanes to direct traffic and reduce turning movements. 4. The gas pumps should be 'separate~ .from the 'c'~rc~umfe.~ential road and tmrn. ed to~ Provide stacking. 5. Staff recommends that a 50 foot right-of-way be 'dedicated in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan from Branchlands property line to Rio Road, and that a two-lane Category IV state road be Constructed for use as a local residential collector. This would require that the east parking area be separated from this road by a raised median with limited curb cuts. Three curb cuts are recommended, one behind Centel, one behind Store "B", and a third to line up with a proposed state road shown on the Squire Hill Apartments site plan. A bike trail is recommended along a portion of this right-of-way, as shown in the approved Bike Plan, from Rio Road to Branchlands property line in the area of the stream. Bike racks, pedestrian crosswalks and areas for public bus stops should be provided. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation See letter dated February 8, 1978, which follows. Entrance No. 2 (opposite Berkmar Dirve) has been eliminated by the applicant. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Highway Department. In addition, at entrance No. 1 the left turn lane on Route 29 South should meet current standards. The decel lane for entrance NO. 1 shall be extended to the main entrance for Albemarle Bank and Trust. The third lane to be constructed just north of entrance No. 3 should connect to the existing third lane in front of National Bank. At entrance No. 5, a single left turn lane is needed on Rio Road westbound. Additional ~edication of land may be needed along Rio Road. Construction entrance shall be at entrance No. 5, subject to the Virginia Dep~rtment of Highways and Transportation approval prior to use. March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) . 80 The strip of land on Rio Road owned by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation must be conveyed or leased to the shopping center prior to build- ing permit approval. The staff has determined what this development's share of highway improvements would be based on the percentage of traffic generated by the mall within the "zone of influence" of the mall. This zone was determined to be Route 29 from Hydraulic to Rio Road, and Rio Road from a point approximately 500 feet west of Route 29 to the east entrance of the mall. These calculations were prepared by the local Highway Department and indicate that in the year 1979, when the mall is expected to open, the amount of exist- ing traffic within the "zone of influence" will be 56,009 vehicles per_day. In addition to this amount, the mall is expected to generate 28,000 v.t.p.d, enter- ing and leaving the mall. (An unknown amount of the 28,000 v.t.p.d, would be included in the 56,009 v.t.p.d., which will be discussed later.) From these figures, the mall's maximum percentage share of the total vehicle count would be 28~000 v.p.d, or 33%. (28,000 + 56,009) v.p.d. The highway improvements which will be needed within the "zone of influence" by the year 1979 and their estimated costs are as follows: U.S. Route 29 from Hydraulic to Rio should be six-laned Route 631 East - Extend to four lanes Route 631 West - 500 feet of four lanes TOTAL $1,521,000 60,000 60~000 $1,641,000 Using the 33% figure determined above, this development's cost share of the above improvements comes to $541,530. ($1,641,000 X .33) The improvements which are being recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and staff and their costs are as follows: U.S. Route 29 frontage or mall (Third Lane) Route 631 East Route 631 West Local Collector from Branchlands to Rio Road Dual left deceleration lanes at Route 29/Rio north and southbound Traffic signal modification Route 29/Rio Road TOTAL $ 40,000 60,000 40,000 167,000 19,500 3,000 $ 329,500 It appears that the amount of improvements being required of the developer is less than his calculated share ($329,500 as compared with $541,530). However, rem~ember that a certain unknown percentage of his traffic would already be using Route 29 in 1979, even if the mall were not constructed. This total does not include deceleration or acceleration lanes, which the developer has agreed to Construct, nor curb and guttering, additional traffic signals or up- grading of entrance No. 1 signal, which the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation will require with their own authority. Additional cost of these ~mprovements is estimated as: Entrance No. 1 acceleration/deceleration Entrance~No. 3 acceleration/deceleration Curb end gutter Route 29 Curb and gutter Route 631 Deceleration lane Route '631 D~al left deceleration lanes Route 29 Entrance No. 3 Traffic signal Route 63I/Entrance No. 5 Traffic signal Routa 129/Entr~ance 'No. 3 Traffic signal modification~ Route 29/Entrance No. 1 TOTAL Total Highway Improvements $ 22,000 19,500 18,000 7,800 13,500 19,500 19,500 19,500 3,000 $ 142,300 $ 329,500 142,300 $ 471,800 It is the staff's opinion that the recommendations for highway improvements agreed ..... upon by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and staff are reasonable, based on his contribution to the total traffic volumes within the "zone of influence". It may be argued that the mall's zone of influence extends throughout the City and the eight counties which it will serve. However, staff fe~ls it would not only be impossible to collect the data to support such a position but it would also require that such information be available for every site plan submittal, including those with far less impact. Conditions of Approval: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of all recommended highway improvements including staff recommendations. 2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer and water plans. 3. Fire official and building inspections approvals. 4. County Engineer's approval of drainage, pavement specifications, retaining walls and guard rails, if needed. 5. Ail conditions of SP-446 Branchlands Planned Community must be met. 6. Approval of this plan includes the future addition to Department Store "C". other items labelled future ~are not a part of this approval. 7. Staff approval of landscape plan. 8. Staff approval of on-site traffic plan. 9. Staff approval of circulation plan as recommended in this report. Ail March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) 10. Grading plan to be approved by Soil Erosion Advisory Committee. 11. Staff approval of loading spaces. 12. No outside storage of trash except in designated areas. 13. Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and traffic. 14. Staff approval of handicapped parking." "February 8, 1978 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Fashion Square Site Plan Albemarle County Attention: Mrs. Mary Joy Scala~ Senior Planner Dear Mrs. Scala: For clarity in my comments concerning the above site plan, listed below are my comments for each entrance and/or location beginning with the southern most entrance on Route 29 called Entrance No. 1 then going clockwise. Entrance No. 1 should be constructed to accept two (2) lanes of traffic entering from SBL 29 to the site. The third lane being built as shown with a taper and large radius for access from NBL 29 to the site allowing the radius to be part of the deceleration lane. We would recommend that a stop sign be placed for traffic coming from the southbound lane at the point of conflict on site with northbound traffic. This will allow the northbound traffic the free flow it needs to properly enter the site. The exit pattern for this intersection is adequate; however, traffic wanting to turn right onto Route 29 northbound should be required to stop before entering Route 29. This can be achieved by not constructing an acceleration lane from this point. Entrance No. 2 should be shifted south far enough to allow a proper length deceleration lane to Entrance No. 3. The spacing shown in the Site Plan reviewed under our letter of January 10~ 1978 appeared to have this proper spacing. In addition, a proper length deceleration lane of one (1) lane width going to two (2) lanes on site would be appropriate. The decision point should move into the site approximately 120 feet from the right of way line (approximately 40 feet further than is shown). Only one (1) lane exiting the site directed northbound is necessary. Again, this traffic should stop before entering Route 29. This can be achieved by not constructing an acceleration lane as shown. Entrance No. 3 to have a proper length of deceleration lane with the right turn lane merging as it approaches the decision point internally. ~ouble left turn lanes in the median of 200-foot With~20~~f~dt~.taper~Sho~ldYbe~Cons~ucted entering the site. Exiting the site, two (2) lanes from the ring road going to three (3) allowing for double lefts to Route 29 southbound and one (1) right turn lane to Route 29 northbound buil~ utilizing an acceleration lane of 200-foot tapering to an adjacent entrance should be constructed. Location No. 4 (Intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road) - Double left t~urn lanes from southbound Route 29 to eastbound Rio Road should be constructed to allow proper utilization of the signal. Double left turn lanes from northbound Route 29 to westbound Rio Road should also be constructed. This would involve constructing two (2) lanes for westbound Rio Road to accept the double left turn lanes. Along eastbound Rio Road, the third lane should be completed from the Route 29 intersection to Entrance No. 5. At Entrance No. 5 a right turn lane, Rio eastbound to the site along with two (2) entering lanes allowing traffic from Rio Road westbound to enter the site should be constructed, these three (3) lanes merging to two at an appropriate distance inside the site. The traffic scheme leaving the site should allow for two (2) lanes left or through and one (1) lane of~traffic to turn right; however, this lane should stop to enter Rio Road traffic. This would be achieved by not building a third lane or acceleration lane from this point east. Entrance No. 6 - The eastern most entrance on Rio Road should be constructed utilizing a turn lane from eastbound Rio Road into the site between the entrance to the site and the entrance to the Telephone building. Traffic leaving the site at this entrance would come to a stop to enter traffic by not utilizing an acceleration lane. The four (4) lanes of Rio Road with proper median must be built a point east of this entrance a sufficient distance to prohibit persons westbound on Rio Road making an illegal turn. At such point these lanes should taper back to the two (2) existing. Insofar as a local collector road from the eastern most entrance on Rio Road down the eastern property line into Branchlands is concerned, the Department would support a State Road; however, the road should be built to State standards for an appropriate traffic count. Access from the parking area to the road must be controlled. We feel this is a detail which can be worked out in the future. In addition to the entrance comments, the third lane along the Route 29 frontage will be required. It is the Department's feeling that all of the above improvements would be at the developer's cost, as well as the upgrading of the signal at Shopper's World; the installation of the signal at the Bill Edwards' Cro~/S~over; the upgrading of the signal at Rio Road and Route 29; the installation of the signal at the Albemarle Square entrance on Rio Road; and curb and gutter and necessary storm drainage. March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) If you should have any ifurther questions, please advise. Very truly yours, D. S. Roosevelt, Resident E~gr. By: W. B. Coburn, Jr. Assistan~ Resident Engineer" Mr. Tucker detailed the traffic problems anticipated and possible solutions. He then noted that on March 14, 1978, the Planning Commission gave conditional approval with conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as shown in the staff report, and rewording numbers 1, 4, 7 and 14 to read as follows: ~1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of all recommended highway improvements including staff recommendations (See attached letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated February 8, 1978 and page 3 of the staff report dated February 28, 1978). 4. County Engineer's approval of drainage such that the rate of runoff after development does not exceed the present rate, pavement specifi- cations, retai~ing walls and guard rails if needed. 7. Staff approval of landscape plan. Landscaping to be maintained in healthy condition and replaced if any should die. 14. Staff approval of handicapped parking and ramps.~ The Planning Commission also added the following conditions: 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. No merchandise shall be displayed or stored outside the buildings or on the sidewalks. This would not apply to garden areas which are in- cluded in the building area. Approval of site plan does not include signs. Approval is subject to the requirements of the State Air Pollution Control Board. Staff approval of location of retention pond, if any, in the approximate area of point "Z" on the Planning Staff Proposal. Approval is subject to the State Water Control Board quality require- ments, if any. Board members questions to Mr. Tucker concerned the road improvements proposed in the State Six Year Highway Plan, and alternate routes to Route 29 proposed for the future through the Branchlands d~velopment. At 8:50 P.M., Mr. Fi: her declared a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. ~r, Executive Vice President of the Leonard L. Farber Company ~d the applicant's views on the construction of the mall. Mr. the mall to point out the layout of buildings proposed. He said )0 of taxes would be produced for Albemarle County after the first ~he mall would employ approximately 2,500 full and part-time personnel. He noted that the construction time would be about 18 months, and consist of about 75 independent jobbers. Mr. Deckinger then presented a series of slides showing other malls constructed by his firm in other areas of the country. He said his company was will- ing to pay for all off-site costs directly the responsibility of the shopping center. Concerning the 50 foot right-of-way (Branchlands through to Rio Ro~d), he said the major problem was that they would be loosing four acres of land, and that they would still be Mr. Eric)~ W. Decking. (CFS Associates), present. Deckinger used a model of that approximately $750,0 full year of operation. required to build their 3( Mr. Deckinger said basicaZ curbs be placed only at ti this had a history of cau~ Next to speak was Mr for L. Farber and Company new signal lights would b~ surrounding roads is betw~ malls such as Charlottesv~ not contribute heavily to was proposed that the col Mr. Deckinger said h relating to the traffic f~ I-foot road within the mall. Regarding on-site traffic circulation, .ly they agreed with Mr. Tucker's suggestion. He did suggest that ~e end of every fourth or fifth lane, rather than every lane, as ~ing traffic problems. Flynn of Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic engineer working Mr. Flynn used a map to indicate points where upgrading or required Mr. Flynn noted that normal peak traffic hours on ~en 4:40 P]M. and 5:30 P.M. The normal peak for shoppers using .lle Fashion Square, would be later in the evening, and therefore t~affic overloads during normal peak hours. Mr. Flynn said it _ector road would be a two-lane road not up to state standards. s firms specific objections are to conditions numbers 1 and 8, ow site costs. Mr. Fisher made note of a letter received by the County on March 27, 1978 from Leonard L. Farber Company. "March 22, 1978 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman of the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle County Office Building East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Ref: Charlottesville Fashion Square Albemarle County, Virginia Dear Mr. Fisher: The purpose of this letter is to outline to the Board of Supervisors those areas that create the ~reatest ~iff~a~]tv ~ ~ ~~* ~ ........... Maroh 30, 19Y8 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) many benefits that we feel that this project offers to Albemarle County, I will confine myself only to the aforementioned areas: Off-Site Costs I have enclosed a list of the various off-site improvements recommended by the Planning Commission and their cost estimates. In addition, I have provided a list of our estimates of each of the items of work. We are prepared to undertake those items which are necessitated as a result of our development. I do ask that you reconsider the position taken by the Planning Commission. Our traffic consultants, Wilbur Smith & Associates, have provided in their report dated January 19, 1978 a definitive analysis of the traffic conditions for the present and future on U. S. Route 29 in the vicinity of our project. Their analysis clearly defines the impact that Charlottesville Fashion Square will have on the road system surrounding it and the proportionate generation of the automobile traffic. The improvements the Planning Commission are recommending are well in excess of the improvements necessitated by this shopping center. 50 Foot Right-of-Way In the estimate for off-site costs, I have included a figure for the construction of a 50 ft. right-of-way on our property and a value for the direct loss of land attributable to that right-of-way. In addition, we will be losing in excess of 100 parking spaces which creat~a further loss of land valued at $50,000 plus the necessity to build an additional 30 ft. roadway to handle on-site traffic. On-Site Traffic Circulation The Planning Commission has required that we accept a significant modification of our on-site traffic plan which creates seri~us safety conditions and traffic congestion in our parking lot. As you may be aware, virtually every phase of the development of a regional shopping center must meet with the approval of the department stores going into that shopping center. We have recently submitted this interior re-design to each of our major department stores. They have all re- fused to accept these changes because of the hazardous conditions created. We will be prepared to discuss in further detail each of the above items at the March 30, 1978 meeting before the Board of Supervisors. I do ask that every consideration be given to the points I have raised in this letter and further ask you to bear in mind that we are deeply concerned that these additional costs place the economic feasibility of this project in jeopardy. Thank you for yomr consideration. Sincerely yours, Eric W. Deckinger Executive Vice President" CHARLOTTESVILLE FASHION SQUARE OFF SITE COSTS IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY STATE 'HIGHWA%: County Estimate 1. U.S. Route 29 Frontage (Third Lane) 2. Route 631 East 3. Route 631 ~est 4. Local Collector from Branchlands to Rio Road (50' Right-Of-Way) 5. Drainage on Route 29 and Rio Road 6. Loss of Land (50' Right-Of-Way) 7. Loss of Parking 8. Overhead and Contingency @ 10% Sub Total: $ 40,000 60,000 40,000 167,000 $307,000 IMPROVEMENTS DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO: 1. Entrance No. 1 Acceleration/Deceleration 2. Entrance No. 3 Acceleration/Deceleration 3. Curb & Gutters, Route 29 4. Curb & Gutters, Route 631 5. Deceleration Lane, Route 631 6. Dual Left Deceleration Lanes, Route 29, Entr. No. 3. 7. Dual Left Deceleration Lanes at Route 29, Rio North & Southbound 8. Traffic Signal Modification Route 29, Rio Road 9. Traffic Signal, Route 631, Entrance No. 5 10. Traffic Signal, Route 29, Entrance No. 3 11.. Traffic Signal Modification, Route 29, Entr. No. 1 12. Signalization Computerization 13~ Overhead and Contingency ~10% Sub Total: Grand Total: $ 22,000 19,500 18,000 7,800 13,500 19,500 19,500 3,000 19,500 19,500 3,000 $164,800 $471,800 Our Estimate $ 45,000 70,000 45,000 208,000 100,000 150,000 50,000 46,800 $714,U00 $ 22,000 22,000 19,500 10r, 000 15,000 22,000 32,000 5,000 25,000 25,000 5,000 45,000 24~750 $272,250 $987,050 March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) Mr. Fisher asked if the figures ~epresented a legitimate claim of what was being requir- ed by the Highway Department. Mr. Deckinger said much of the difference is due to a contin- gency placed on the estimates by his company. Other costs were those originally not included in their estimates. Mr. Fisher then opened the meeting to public comment. First to speak was Mr. Alan Scouten of Berkeley, an architect with experience in the field of shopping centers. He presented his views as to how the traffic problem off-site could best be handled, basically agreeing with those views of the County Planning Staff. He asked what methods were be~g considered to encourage pedestrian traffic or bus stops for customers. Mr. Bernard Haggerty, Regional Executive Officer of the Virginia National Bank, said he was a local resident. He said he hoped to see this project approved. Also, he ~elt that there was a duplication of road being required when the County asked for the 30-foot road and the 50-foot road to go into the Mall. Mr. David Wood urged the Board to approve the application. He suggested the Board consider a crossover at.the entrance of the mall and the intersection of Berkmar Drive. Mr. Wallace Reid, a resident of Rugby Road, suggested the Board consider the Clean Air Act of 1979 and consider the possibility of either restricting the flow of traffic through the Route 29 Corridor, or developing a system by which the traffic can flow through'-smoothly without constant starting and stopping. He noted that future failure to meet Federal standards for air quality will result in loss of Federal and State highway monies. Mr. Wendell Wood said he supported the project mainly as a taxpayer of the County. He said the projected net taxes generated from this mall would be a substantial contribution to the County's budget. Mr. William Woodworth suggested more attention be paid to reconstructing the downtown area of the City rather than adding further congestion to the Route ~29 North area. He further suggested that a parking garage be considered instead of massive parking lots in order to eleviate a great deal of the potential water runoff problem. Mr. Willaim Leggett said he was a resident of Albemarle County and in charge of ex- pansion of Leggett stores throughout the state. He urged the Board's approval of this project, and added that he felt it would work, and~not be a source of traffic obstruction as so many people have suggested. Mr. A1 Garrett, President of United Virginia Bank, suggested the Board approve the modi£ications suggested by the developer regarding the internal a~ ~o~nector roads to the a~ Mall. He felt it was not necessary to have both a 30-foot/rmgh~-~-way leading into the mall. He said whatever investment the County put into this project now, they would eventual] make back in tax dollars in the future. ~ion, and is to be located on the site. Mr. Lane Kneedler first asked if and where the recommended holding pond for water runoff was located. Mr. Tucker said the holding pond was suggested by the Planning Commisa.- Mr. Kneedler then stated that it was up to the developer and his contracted stores to bear the cost of traffic and road construction, not the taxpayer. He noted that if this location was lucrative enough to attract the mall developers, there must be sufficient profit there to pay the bills. Mr. Leigh Middleditch, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber supported the application, and then asked Mr. Tucker which site plan the Planning Commission most supported. Mr. Tucker said he did not completely support either site plan, because both had areas which created traffic difficulties. Mr. Middleditch then stated his concern for pedestrians leaving their cars in the parking lots. He suggested that a network of walk- ways be added to the plan. Finally, he felt the taxpayers should share in the costs of constructing the 50-foot access road, as it is to be considered a public road, and would be ~uilt for public use not 'so'l'ely for the purpose of entering the mall. Mr. W. A. Pace, a County resident, said traffic has always been a problem in the 29 North 'area, and surges'ted that Rio Road and Hydraulic Road be taken care of before the mall is constructed. He also felt it was only fair to share the burden of road construction costs with';the developer since this was to be a public roadway. Mr. Ralph Benzinger, a County resident, said he strongly supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for the roadway through the Branchlands property. Ms. Elizabeth Rosenblum said she felt a project of this magnitude should have the full review of the Board of Supervisors. She also questioned how this shopping mall was indi- cated in the Comprehensive Plan. She said she felt it was not shown in the Plan, and could therefore see no real reason for it. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation said the information from the C.A.T.S. study (Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study) could not be used in determining traffic problems in the mall area, because all it's data is related to the year 2000 and beyond. He also said he felt the road called "Michie Drive Extended" would best be built by the developer at this time, otherwise it probably will not be constructed. Mr. Fisher asked about a series of levels which are used by the Highway Department to describe the seriousness of traffic congestion on any particular road. Mr. Roosevelt said level "A" would be equivalent to Interstate 64 in the Charlottesville area. Level "E" would indicate that the road is carrying the maximum number of vehicles possible without undue delays. Level "F" would mean traffic congestion which would actually cause the traffic count to lessen because less cars can travel through in any particular amount of time' He then rated Route 29 in the area between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road to be somewhe~e~between a level "C" and a level "D". ' Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Commission will be meeting in the Culpeper office on April 12, 1978, with citizens concerning highway improvements along the primary and inter- state system. He suggested that a Board member or staff member be present at that meeting !85 March 30, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from March 29, 1978) to recommend improvements to Route 29. He then went through the list of estimates to make improvements to Route 29 and surrounding roads necessary with the development of the propos- ed mall. He estimated that the developer's fair share comes to approximately $665,500. He stated that the mall would add approximately 11,690 vehicle~itrips per day to Route 29 North and South between the mall site and the City. He noted that to this point,~ traffic has increased by about 1,000 vehicle trips per day per year; thereby using up about 11 years worth of lead time. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom requested a brief recess. 11:35 P.M. Meeting was reconvened at 11:40 P.M. Mr. Fisher declared a recess at Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing, and requested opinions of Board members. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the Branchlands connector road. Also, he had met with a number of private engineers who suggested a method of eleviating the congestion on Route 29, and he requested that the staff and the highway department meet with a pro- fessional engineer to consider a "flyover" as an exit opposite Shopper's World. Mr. Roudabush said he would like time to think about what had been discussed tonight. He also suggested consideration be given to connecting the collector road with Squire Hill instead of running it all the way to Rio Road. Dr. Iachetta questioned whether the Michie Drive Extended road is going to be of any help in solving traffic problems in the long term, and suggesting getting this long term information from the C.A.T.S. study. Mr. Roosevelt said this road will not appear in the C.A.T.S. study, because it is viewed only as a local collector, not part of the major transportation system. Mr. Dorrier said he was mainly concerned with the collector road and requested a study on the funding of the road to see if it could be financed on a cost-sharing basis with Branchlands, the Mall and the adjacent property owners, also how it should be tied in with the Branchlands Community. Following considerable discussion as to the necessity of the collector road, and who should share in the cost of building the collector, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer action until April 12, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Court- house. Prior to this meeting the staff, highway department and developer are to consult and try to find answers to those questions regarding the collector road. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Claims against the County for the month of March, 1978, are set out below: General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund McIntire Trust Fund Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Total ~ 467,779.79 1,286,849.28 369,506.00 34,313.35 182.34 47,232.50 4,381.22 93.61 7,686.83 $2,218,024.92 At 12:15 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.