Appendix II.

 

Request for Redesignation of Property Shown on Places29 Future Land Use Framework Map: Wendell Wood

 

Mr. Wood has requested that a portion of the area south of Hollymead Town Center be redesignated (see attached copy of the Framework Map North and attached copy of Mr. Wood’s proposed land use designations). In the current Comprehensive Plan, the area is designated Industrial Service. Under Places29, the area has a mixture of proposed designations, including a Neighborhood Service Center, Urban Density Residential, and Neighborhood Density Residential. Mr. Wood is requesting to change most of these designations to a Destination Center that would permit development of a large footprint retail store, with surrounding retail and mixed use. As part of his request, Mr. Wood and the large retailer are proposing to proffer to construct a significant portion of Berkmar Drive Extended. Further, Mr. Wood’s proposal may also include funding for all or part of the cost of the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River.

 

Staff has outlined the pros and cons of this proposal.

The cons include:

·         The Retail Market Analysis conducted by ZHA, the Places29 economic consultant, does not indicate a need for additional commercial property beyond what is currently shown on the Framework Map.

·         Providing too much area for retail activity can discourage future new retail activity in the areas where it is most desired—in planned areas or areas where redevelopment is encouraged.

·         From a land use perspective, consultants and staff are directing commercial, retail, and office growth into the area from Hollymead Town Center north to include the Airport Road corridor, the proposed Uptown, the University of Virginia Research Park, and the North Pointe development to the east of US 29. This is the area proposed for the Airport Road Corridor Small Area Plan. Consultants and staff are using the unnamed tributary of Powell Creek and its buffers as the southern boundary of this more intensively developed commercial/retail area.

·         The proposed change would foster continued linear commercial development along US 29. Attendees at Places29 public workshops and other events have indicated that they want the current “rural:” appearance of US 29 south of the Hollymead Town center to be preserved. This would be inconsistent with major retail and commercial development that would expect visibility from US 29.

·         Changing these land use designations is likely to have a major impact on the transportation modeling and analysis; the network currently shown on the Framework Map will be adequate to serve the land uses as proposed. However, if the uses are changed, the modeling and analysis will need to be redone and may show that additional improvements are necessary, such as:

o        Potential need for an additional grade separation at the primary access point to this site from US 29

o        Potential need/pressure for direct access onto US 29, in opposition to the proposed access management strategy

o        Need for additional lanes on Berkmar Drive Extended

·         The proposed proffer to construct a stretch of Berkmar Drive Extended would still leave a significant stretch to be constructed and funded by others. Staff does not yet have an estimate for the cost of the bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna River, so staff cannot determine how much of the potential cost of the bridge might be covered by funds that otherwise would be spent on widening US 29.

The pros include:

·         The approval of any development in this particular area of Hollymead will be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation and infrastructure improvements, including the construction and connection of Berkmar Drive Extended to the existing portion of Berkmar Drive and the widening of US 29 from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center area (the existing 6-lane section). Large-scale commercial development of this type is most likely to be able to fund the development of this level of improvements as part of a development proposal. It is less likely the recommended residential use will be able to support the same level of contribution toward the construction of these improvements.

·         Staff notes that the potential for a strong visual impact on US 29 could be mitigated by requiring the proposed development to be oriented internally and to have access from a street perpendicular to US 29.

 

Staff does not recommend this proposed land use change because the uncertainties and disadvantages outweigh the advantages. If there is support for these land use changes, further traffic analyses should be undertaken to determine traffic impacts. Also, more specific development/design expectations for this area should be developed.

 

Go to next attachment

Return to exec summary