Silver Line CPAM UPDATE. Transportation and Land Use Committee October 14, 2016

Transcription

1 Silver Line CPAM UPDATE Transportation and Land Use Committee October 14, 2016

2 Purpose Recap Project History and Map Changes Provide Overview of CPAM Components Discuss Transportation Impacts Discuss Fiscal Impacts Discuss Issues and Alternatives Committee Questions and Feedback

3 Project History May 2014 ULI Technical Assistance Panel September 2015 Market Analysis and Best Practices Study December 2015 Scenario Planning Study January 2016 Board Directs Staff to Develop Work plan for CPAM March 2016 Board initiates CPAM

4 Project History (continued) June 29, 2016 Public Meeting #1 July 15, TLUC September 13, 2016 Public Meeting #2

5 Proposed Land Use Plan (Iteration 1)

6 Planned Land Use Map (Iteration 2)

7 Planned Land Use Map (Iteration 3)

8 Plan Components Land Use Typologies Urban Design Guidelines Community Facilities Parks, Schools, Emergency Services, etc. Green Infrastructure Workforce Housing Multi-Modal Transportation Implementation

9 Implementation CTP and RGP Amendments (with adoption of CPAM) Zoning Modifications (Separate Effort) Interim Uses Capital Facilities Planning New Standards? Zoning Changes? Unmet Housing Policies Residential Development Types Student Generation Rates Fiscal Balance

10 Transportation Network Revisions

11 Transportation Updates Roadways 1. Shellhorn Road and Lockridge Road have been realigned in accordance with October 4, 2016 BOS Direction 2. Third proposed Broad Run crossing has been removed due to realigned Shellhorn Road and changes to land use and travel patterns Transit 3. Metro circulators have been rerouted based upon public comments and changes to roadway network

12 Updated Streets Plan

13 Silver Line Area Circulator Routes

14 Transportation Model Based upon total development forecasted through 2040 Evaluates the overall functionality of proposed transportation network Takes a conservative approach (Almost everyone traveling alone by car) Model will continue to be refined as part of VDOT review of CPAM

15 Model Outputs Transportation network is forecast to operate acceptably through 2040 Some road segments may be congested during peak hours, but no corridors are forecasted to be over capacity While some traffic congestion is anticipated, this is typical of dense urban environments

16 PM Peak Hour Results Existing CTP Network (with Iteration 3 land uses) Proposed CTP Network (with Iteration 3 land uses)

17 Comparison to Nearby Urban Centers Silver Line Policy Area Reston Town Center

18 Transportation Network Findings The proposed network accommodates the anticipated traffic generated by the increased land use density The proposed network encourages use of transit, bicycling, and walking The forecasted levels of congestion are less severe than in comparable urban centers

19 Fiscal Impact Analysis

20 Change to the overall fiscal balance within the County ( Fiscal Impact ) Capital facility needs Key Questions Revenues for the Metrorail Service Tax District Metrorail service tax district revenues can be used to fund Metrorail capital costs. Payments for Metrorail operating costs are not included in this analysis.

21 Examining Change Comparing the proposed plan to the current plan: impact of the difference Countywide Fiscal Balance Countywide Change Changes to residential and office development within the plan area result in the same changes Countywide

22 New Residential Units (Forecasted 2040) Current Plan (incl. entitlements) 7,142 total units Proposed Plan 22,251 total units Proposed Plan 4,402 additional single-family attached 10,707 additional multi-family 15,109 additional units

23 Methodology Focus on 15,000 additional units and 2.5 million SF Office in the year 2040 Use reduced pupil generation rates and household sizes for multi-family units Identify need for new capital facilities based on current standards Characterize change in fiscal balance using FY 2016 budget and constant dollars Forecast tax district revenues using $0.20 real property tax rate

24 Sensitivity Tests Fiscal Balance; Capital Needs Balance of residential and nonresidential development Number of residents and school children per multi-family unit Per Unit Pupils Residents Plan vision: small multi-family units Current multi-family rates Tax District Revenues; Capital Financing Costs When and how rapidly development occurs

25 Capital Facility Needs, 2040 About half the cost of the nontransportation portion of the current CIP Using current, conservative standards, about 300 acres of land would be needed If not offset by developer contributions, costs equate to adding a school to the CIP each year

26 Change in the Countywide Fiscal Balance, 2040 For the mix of development and smaller multi-family units envisioned for the proposed plan Revenues Operating Expenditures Net Operating Flows Capital Expenditures Related to Affordable Units Fiscal Impact $91 M - $84.3 M $6.7 M - $4.7 M $2 M Capital expenditures based on residential development over 23 years

27 Key Points: Countywide Fiscal Balance Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be fiscally positive Balance of residential and nonresidential development is necessary Residential development must generate fewer residents and school children Developer contributions to offset capital costs are necessary

28 Tax District Implications

29 Metrorail Service Tax District Revenues Cumulative increase in revenues as of 2040 Slower/Sooner Development Delayed, then Rapid Development Nonresidential (Office) Development $ 9.1 M $ 4.8 M Residential Development $ 83.3 M $ 44.3 M Total Additional Revenues $ 92.4 M $ 49.1 M

30 Planned Activities Planning Commission Public Hearing October VDOT Review minimum 90 days pending resolution of land use plan and finalization of transportation planning VDOT scoping ongoing 30

31 Issues

32 Issues 1. Land Use Alternatives (4 Alternatives) 2. Urban Residential Designation 3. Identifying Park and School Areas 4. Residential in and Adjacent to Airport Impact Overlay 32

33 Issue 1 - Alternative A Current Plan Alternative A

34 Land Use Typologies Urban Mixed Use, Medium Buildings TYPICAL MEDIUM URBAN MIXED-USE LAND USES Primary Land Uses Apartment Buildings Restaurants Grocery Stores Banks Doctor Offices Multi-tenant Office Buildings Corporate Office Buildings Secondary Land Uses Community Facilities Schools Neighborhood Parks Public Plazas Urban style townhomes Undesirable Land Uses Single Family Detached Homes Suburban style townhomes Auto oriented uses (Gas Stations, Drive- through restaurants) MEDIUM URBAN MIXED-USE FORM AND PATTERN Land Use Mix Mix of Uses Residential Density du/ac Typical Home Size SF Non-Residential Intensity FAR Prevailing Building Height 4-6 Stories (90 Max) Typical Block Length LF Street Pattern Grid MEDIUM URBAN MIXED-USE FORM AND PATTERN Open Space Elements Pocket Parks / Plazas Land Use Mix Primary Transportation Modes Mix of Uses Transit, Walk, Bike, Auto Residential Density Parking du/ac Structure, On Street Parking Provision Parking, Rear Surface Lot Non-Residential Intensity FAR Building Orientation Facing Street Prevailing Building Height Building Placement 4-6 Stories (90 Max) Directly Behind Sidewalk Primary Transportation Modes Transit, Walk, Bike, Auto

35 Issue 2 - Alternative B Current Plan Alternative B

36 Issue 3 - Alternative C Current Plan Alternative C

37 Land Use Typologies Urban Residential RESIDENTIAL RESIDENITAL LAND USES Primary Land Uses Urban Style Townhomes Apartment Buildings Condominiums Two-over-Two Units Multi-family Attached Secondary Land Uses Schools Churches Community Centers Limited neighborhood retail like drugstores and convenience stores in an urban, walkable format Undesirable Land Uses Suburban style townhomes Suburban style retail uses Land Use Mix Separated Uses Residential Density 8 24 du/ac Typical Home Size 700 2,000 SF Non-Residential Intensity N/A Prevailing Building Height 3 6 Stories (70 Max) Typical Block Length Street Pattern URBAN RESIDENITAL FORM AND PATTERN N/A URBAN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENITAL FORM AND PATTERN Curvilinear or Grid Open Land Space Use Mix Elements Pocket Separated Parks / Uses Courts / Buffers / Ponds Primary Residential Transportation Density Modes Transit, 8 24 Walk, du/ac Bike, Auto Parking Non-Residential Provision Intensity Private N/A Driveways, On-Street Building Prevailing Orientation Building Height Facing 3 6 Street Stories (70 Max) Building Primary Placement Transportation Modes Setback Transit, Behind Walk, Front Bike, Yard Auto

38 Issue 4 - Alternative D Current Plan Alternative D

39 Issue 5 - Urban Residential RESIDENTIAL RESIDENITAL LAND USES Primary Land Uses Urban Style Townhomes Apartment Buildings Condominiums Two-over-Two Units Multi-family Attached Secondary Land Uses Schools Churches Community Centers Limited neighborhood retail like drugstores and convenience stores in an urban, walkable format Undesirable Land Uses Suburban style townhomes Suburban style retail uses Land Use Mix Separated Uses Residential Density 8 24 du/ac Typical Home Size 700 2,000 SF Non-Residential Intensity N/A Prevailing Building Height 3 6 Stories (70 Max) Typical Block Length Street Pattern URBAN RESIDENITAL FORM AND PATTERN N/A URBAN RESIDENTIAL RESIDENITAL FORM AND PATTERN Curvilinear or Grid Open Land Space Use Mix Elements Pocket Separated Parks / Uses Courts / Buffers / Ponds Primary Residential Transportation Density Modes Transit, 8 24 Walk, du/ac Bike, Auto Parking Non-Residential Provision Intensity Private N/A Driveways, On-Street Building Prevailing Orientation Building Height Facing 3 6 Street Stories (70 Max) Building Primary Placement Transportation Modes Setback Transit, Behind Walk, Front Bike, Yard Auto

40 Issue 6 Park and School Locations Approximate size of 1 Urban Recreation Park

41 Potential School Locations

42 Schools Growth management policies to ensure residential development does not occur without provision of schools 5,300 to 8,000 new students projected Need for at least 3 ES, 1 MS, 1 HS Schools to be neighborhood serving Student generation rates dependent on unit type Need for continuous monitoring of school needs

43 Elementary Schools Walkable urban format 900± student capacity Minimize need for bussing Emphasis on pedestrian environment Smaller footprints Integrated into communities

44 Middle and High Schools Necessitate a more suburban form and location 1,350± student capacity for Middle Schools 1,800± student capacity for High Schools Need to accommodate vehicular traffic Increased need for recreation space Explore smaller footprint designs

45 Issue 7 Airport Impact Overlay

46 Silver CPAM Questions and Feedback? 46