Attachment A

 

Copies of the three Initial Future Framework Alternatives prepared by the consultant team are attached for your review.  These alternatives show three different combinations of future land uses and transportation networks for the Places29 area. The intent of consultants and staff (County, TJPDC, and VDOT) is to give three very different proposals for public consideration.

 

For the past several months, the consultants have been analyzing background data about the County and the Places29 area. They have combined this information (e.g., population growth, future needs for commercial space, transportation issues) with feedback from the public about their wishes and needs (e.g., better road network, more transit, more parks and open space) to create these three initial framework alternatives.

 

The Alternatives

There are three general comments about these alternatives. First, the presentation of the land uses has been simplified. Second, only the two largest Centers and the Uptown/Midtown Special Areas are shown. Third, the transportation network includes the proposed major transit routes.

 

Land Uses. To help the public focus on the issues and questions that need to be addressed during the May workshops, we have simplified the land uses in these alternatives. This decision comes out of our experience at the November 2005 workshops. Some of the participants in those workshops were distracted from considering the overall land use and transportation patterns; they were evaluating where residential uses should go, where the offices were, and so on. So, in these alternatives for the May workshops, we are presenting land uses as areas where new development is proposed (shown in yellow) and proposed redevelopment areas (shown in orange).

 

The Preferred Alternative prepared for the September workshops will show a more detailed land use pattern.

 

Centers. The Community and Destination centers are shown on these alternatives, along with a “Midtown” in Alternative 2 and an “Uptown” in Alternative 3. The smaller neighborhood-scale centers (“Civic Green” and “Neighborhood Service”) will be included in the Preferred Alternative (September workshops).

 

Transportation Network. Each of these alternatives features a transportation network with improvements designed to support future development. We have also included proposed major transit routes to show how new development oriented to different transportation routes might be served by transit. It should be understood, when reviewing these alternatives, that each proposed new road will include sidewalks and bike paths/lanes.

 

Initial Framework Alternative 1.

Alternative 1 is the base case; it will serve as the first alternative and will also be a comparison for the other two alternatives. Transportation improvements are focused on US 29 and most new development (yellow) is shown north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. There is a small amount of redevelopment (orange) shown south of the South Fork. The Centers will be focused towards and accessed primarily from US 29. This alternative incorporates the lowest (most conservative) amount of new development and redevelopment and has the fewest Centers of the three alternatives.

 

Initial Framework Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 features a major network of parallel roads; both Berkmar Drive Extended and Northern Free State Road are included, for a parallel route on each side of US 29. There are more of the larger Centers, and they are focused on and accessed primarily from the parallel roads (rather than US 29). This alternative also shows a “Midtown”—a special area in the southwest quadrant of US 29 and Rio Road. There is significantly more new development north of the South Fork (than in Alternative 1), as well as more projected redevelopment south of the South Fork.

 

Initial Framework Alternative 3.

At the request of the Board, the Ruckersville Parkway has been removed from this alternative. The revised alternative includes Berkmar Drive Extended as the means of serving the “Uptown” special area just north of Airport Road. Most of the Centers are also focused on and have primary access from Berkmar Drive Extended. As in Alternative 2, this alternative shows more development north of the South Fork, more redevelopment south of the South Fork, and more Centers than Alternative 1. The overall amount of new development is greater than in Alternative 1.

 

Go to next attachment

Return to executive summary