1 BLUEMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION Approved Minutes MARCH 28

BLUEMONT CIVIC ASSOCIATION Approved Minutes MARCH 28, 2013 Fire Station #2, 4805 Wilson Blvd. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING NOTE: This off-­‐schedule meeting of the Executive Board was arranged at the request of developer Mark Silverwood. The sole agenda item was the Safeway-­‐Silverwood redevelopment proposal for Bluemont’s Safeway in preparation for the special general membership meeting to be held on 4/3/13. The meeting time was originally scheduled for 7 pm but was pushed back to 6 pm at the request of the developer on 3/25/13. BCA members were notified of the 3/28 and 4/3 meetings via a special postcard sent by U.S. mail. The time change was announced via by BCA and Safeway Task Force listserv messages. Attendance: George Rovder, President; Mark Haynes, 1st VP; VP; Nancy O’Doherty, Treasurer; Larry Smith, Neighborhood Conservation (NC) Representative; Suzanne Sundburg and Sandy Munnell, Civic Federation Delegates; Dean Foster, Civic Federation Alternate; Judah dal Cais, Immediate Past President; Bernadette Wolford, Patty Stern, Paul Ducharme, and Maura Quinn, BCA Safeway Task Force members; Steve Cole, Ryan Arnold, Craig Deering, Michael Groves, and Joan and Charlie Myers, BCA members; Mark Silverwood and Brian Mowbray, Silverwood Associates; and Avis Black and Michelle Shelton, representatives of Safeway. President Rovder called the meeting to order at approximately 6 pm. Silverwood provided a brief biography of his professional history and gave an overview of his organization. His companies own/operate several thousand apartments in VA, WVA, and NC. He has leveraged Affordable Housing Investment Funds (AHIF) in VA to build/renovate several affordable housing projects. He noted that he had been in discussions with Safeway regarding the Bluemont site for the last 10 years. His proposal represents the desires of Safeway HQ to defray the cost of redeveloping the site. Black, who arrived shortly after the meeting began, gave an overview of Safeway’s new “Lifestyle” model, which is being proposed for the Bluemont site. Lifestyle Safeway stores are larger, with a height of 20’, the new Safeway would occupy virtually the entire ground floor/footprint of the site with approximately 57,000 sq ft of space. Lifestyle stores concentrate on perishable items, like ready-­‐to-­‐eat options, fruits and vegetables. The store would sell wines and have a service meat counter and deli., in addition to an in-­‐store Starbucks and drycleaners. To accommodate the larger footprint, parking would have to be located underground. Silverwood described the residential levels above the store. The four (4) residential stories above the store would contain approximately 160 1-­‐bedroom plus den and 2-­‐bedroom apartments. He is seeking a zoning change to C-­‐O-­‐1.0 zoning that would permit a building height of up to 65 feet. 1
Below the store would be two levels of underground parking: the upper level with 190 parking spaces serving Safeway, the lower level with 212 spaces dedicated to apartment residents. Silverwood explained that approximately 10 of the apartments would qualify as committed affordable housing units (CAFs), and the Safeway store would qualify for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) gold-­‐level certification. Vehicles entering/exiting the Safeway and apartment underground parking lots would use driveways on N. Edison Street opposite the McDonald’s access-­‐driveway behind Two Chefs. The new store’s proposed loading dock and trash bins would face N. Frederick Street, as would some additional covered parking spaces serving the apartments’ rental office. Silverwood described the parking ratio as “healthy” and noted that access to the apartments’ garage would be gate-­‐controlled, and residents would use separate elevators. Silverwood displayed architectural drawings that he described as “preliminary” and that the BCA was not allowed to retain (see photos attached). He pointed to a 13-­‐foot difference in elevation between the Edison and Frederick Street corners. The first apartment level above Safeway would contain a swimming pool for residents and some landscaped space. The apartments would range between 700 and 1,200 sq ft in size. The highest apartment level would be a fourth level on top of Safeway’s 20-­‐foot, ground-­‐floor retail level, which would be on the Frederick Street side of the building. The Edison Street side and the rear of the building would be capped at 3 stories for the apartment levels above the store (a total height of approximately 50 feet). The garage and Safeway levels will be concrete, with the 3–4 upper residential stories being “stick built.” At this point, attendees began asking questions: Q. What is the reason for having a 4th level on top of the Safeway level? A. To break up the building’s mass so that it won’t be a big box with no relief. Q. Would Safeway still consider redeveloping the store without the housing and underground parking, as Safeway employees indicated at the civic association-­‐sponsored town hall meeting in Dec. 2012? A. Black contradicted the earlier statement, saying that she didn’t know who had said Safeway would redevelop the site even if the proposed plan was rejected, and she did not share the earlier opinion. Q. With so many different Safeway models being built on various sites in the metro area—
including single-­‐story buildings with surface parking—what made Safeway choose such a dense redevelopment for what is largely a single-­‐family-­‐home residential area? A. Black referred to the Bluemont site as a “neighborhood location” and said that Safeway evaluated each site individually. The current proposal is the economic model that supports redevelopment on the site. The new store will attract neighbors who don’t currently shop at the Bluemont Safeway. 2
Q. If the store is to serve only the neighborhood, then why are 190 spaces needed when the existing lot is more than half empty on most occasions? A. No answer given. Q. When so many grocery stores nearby have convenient surface parking, why wouldn’t residents drive to one of those stores rather than parking in an underground lot? A. Black stated that Safeway considers the Bluemont site a “city” location and has found “acceptance” of underground parking in these locations. Q. Have any “sun” studies been performed to see how the proposed building would affect the amount of light nearby homes receive? A. No sun studies have yet been done. Q. Roughly, what is the cost per space of the underground parking spaces? A. Silverwood stated that underground parking spaces range from $28–32,000 each. If the water table on the site is high and he was forced to install a “bathtub” to keep water out of the garage, then there would be an added cost of roughly $6,000 per space. In all, the underground parking will cost roughly $10 million as proposed. Q. Could Safeway’s underground parking spaces be used as public parking so that residents can visit other nearby establishments like Two Chefs or Pupatella? A. Black replied, saying that Safeway understands the concept of a “shared” trip, whereby a Safeway customer may choose to visit another nearby business in conjunction with a trip to Safeway. She said that the parking was first and foremost dedicated to Safeway customers and that so long as there was ample parking for Safeway customers, she indicated a limited amount of tolerance for shared-­‐trip parking. But she also made it clear that if there were too much competition for these spaces, Safeway would take steps to restrict the parking to customers who were actively shopping for groceries on site. Q. What will the building setback be? A. The setback on the Wilson Blvd. side will be 18 free from the curb to the face of the building. Q. Will utility poles be placed underground? A. Utility lines adjacent to the site on Wilson, Frederick and Edison will be placed underground. Q. Why can’t the existing C-­‐1 zoning be retained? A. Silverwood replied that C-­‐1 zoning allows for a building height of 35 feet, plus an additional 23 feet for a “penthouse” level, for a total building height of 58 feet. But C-­‐1 would allow only 40 residential units, which wouldn’t “work” in this case. Q. Have other zoning options been considered? A. Silverwood replied that other zoning options were considered but his attorney at Walsh Colucci told him C-­‐O-­‐1.0 was the “best” option. Q. How many trucks per day will come into the loading dock and when/how long will it take for trucks to arrive and leave? A. Black replied that approximately 6 trucks a day would pull into the 3
loading dock. Docking time varies, and trucks arrive throughout the day and night, with most arriving as early in the morning as possible. Q. Wouldn’t it make more sense for trucks, which need a wider street to back into the loading dock, to use a loading dock on the Edison Street side of the building? That side of the building is faces other commercial establishments, Edison is wider (with no street parking), and there is a commercial driveway for McDonalds on the other side of Edison that might facilitate truck maneuvering. A. Black replied that she would check on the street width of both Edison and Frederick and their suitability for truck access. Silverwood stated that they were “dealing with certain site characteristics” that require a certain grade for the trucks. Frederick Street has the optimal characteristics. Q. Have any traffic studies been performed to estimate the impact of all added cars belonging to apartment residents and shoppers on neighborhood streets and existing traffic congestion? A. Silverwood replied that the proposal was still in the preliminary stages and that no traffic studies had been performed yet. Q. Wouldn’t the current service commercial GLUP designation limit building height to 40 feet? A. No, under a site plan process, building height for C-­‐O-­‐1.0 is a maximum of 65 feet. Q. Will the applicant be asking for a GLUP change? And will the applicant be seeking any additional bonus density beyond what is already being proposed (in other words, will there be more than 160 units on the site)? A. Silverwood replied that he was not seeking a GLUP change and that he believed the C-­‐O-­‐1.0 zoning will cap the number of units at 162 and thus no more “bonus” density could be added to the site. Q. Why is the main story entryway not located along Wilson Blvd. to encourage pedestrian traffic? Has a Wilson Blvd. entrance been scrapped? A. Black indicated that a Wilson Blvd. entryway could still be looked at. Silverwood noted that vehicular traffic would need access to a traffic light to assist with traffic movement, and there is a light on N. Edison Street. In addition to an at-­‐grade pedestrian entrance at the corner of Wilson and Edison, there would also be a pedestrian entrance located at the corner of Wilson and Frederick, although pedestrians would have to travel down some stairs/take an elevator/escalator down to the store level. Q. Wouldn’t it be possible to make the put the store on two levels so that other retail could also be located on the ground floor? A. Black replied that Safeway had no stores with sales areas on two floors (there are some with backroom operations on a second level), as customers prefer to shop on one level. She said it would be “extremely difficult” to lay out a sales area with other retail on the ground floor. Q. Would there be any external/outdoor access to the drycleaners or any other co-­‐located retail establishments? A. Black replied that multiple entry/exit points present security concerns and it is not something Safeway prefers. 4
Q. Elsewhere, Safeway stores are only 15 feet in height. Why does Bluemont’s Safeway need to be 20 feet high? A. Black replied that Safeway prefers 15 feet finished ceiling height. The additional 5 feet is used for ductwork, etc. Silverwood reported that he has had initial meetings with county planning staff member Tom Miller (but had submitted no drawings) and had met with County Board member Chris Zimmerman. He noted that he still needed to meet with Safeway corporate staff and allow them to review his proposal. Silverwood invited the BCA to submit questions in writing via e-­‐mail, to help facilitate getting questions answered before the special membership meeting on April 3. Silverwood and the Safeway representatives then departed. Safeway Task Force and Executive Board members discussed the logistics for the April 3 meeting. It was decided that due to time constraints, 4/3 attendees would be given an opportunity to ask a question/make a statement within 1 minute and would be allowed one very brief follow-­‐up question. Rovder asked Munnell to serve as the timekeeper. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 pm. 5
March 28, 2013, Executive Board Meeting Minute Attachments 6
7