Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100008 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-09-22oasts Cameron Langille Principal Planner, Planning ,xtx, County Of Albemarle blan¢ille@albemarle.ore Community Development Department tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3432 Memorandum To: Valerie Long, vlong@williamsmullen.com Date: September 5, 2021 Re: ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences Zoning Map Amendment & ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved to Managed Steep Slopes Zoning Map Amendment — First Review Comment Letter Ms. Long: Staff has reviewed your revised submittal for the zoning map amendment, ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences and ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved to Managed Steep Slopes. We have a few remaining comments which we believe should be addressed before we can recommend favorably on your ZMA request. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: General Application Comments: 1. No new proffers were submitted with the first iteration of either application. If the applicant chooses to submit a proffer statement with a subsequent submittal, additional comments may be forthcoming. a. The plan submitted with the application is titled "Application Plan." Application Plans are not required with zoning map amendments proposing conventional zoning districts, such as R-15. Therefore, staff cannot say at this time that the proposed layout, performance standards, unit types, unit counts, etc. shown on the plans are being committed to by the developer. 2. The County's current housing policy recommends that new residential rezonings provide 15% of the total proposed units as affordable housing. For rental units, the rental rate is 50%AMI. The application narrative and Sheet 2 of the Application Plan indicates that this project proposes to provide 15% affordable units representing the difference between the number that of units that could be developed under current zoning, and the number of units that could be redeveloped following rezoning of the property. This is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8, Strategy #2g and Chapter 9, Strategy #6b. a. Furthermore, the description of the proposed affordable housing is only described in the project narrative and notes on the application plan. What assurances is the applicant making to actually providing the affordable units should the rezoning be approved? b. Please see comments from the Housing Planner attached to this letter. Planning staff encourage the applicant to contact Stacy Pethia, soethia@albemarle.org, to obtain further information on the County's Housing Policy and how the application can be revised to be consistent with affordable housing goals. 3. The narrative states that ZMA202100009 is requesting to rezone areas of Preserved Steep Slopes on TMPs 60- 24C1, 60-24C3, and 60-24C4. Per Albemarle County GIS, there are no Preserved Steep Slopes on TMP 60-24C1. Please explain why there is a request to rezone Preserved Steep Slopes on 60-24C1. 4. Impacts to schools. Students within this project would attend Greer Elementary, Jack Jouett Middle, and Albemarle High School. Per the ACPS March 2021 Capacity vs. Enrollment report, Albemarle High School is currently over capacity and is projected to remain over capacity over the next 10 years. Greer Elementary is currently under capacity and even with the number of students generated by this development according to the project narrative, will remain under capacity over the next 10 years. The report indicates that enrollment at Jack Jouett Middle will fluctuate over the next 10 years between under capacity and over capacity. a. The project narrative (pages 12-14) uses different multipliers (Actual School Enrollment in Existing Townhome Communities and Actual School Enrollment in Existing Multifamily Communities) to estimate the true number of students that would be generated by this project by evaluating the enrollment figures from similar existing neighborhoods elsewhere in the County. The official calculator used on page 12 of the WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 narrative is the calculator that County staff have been directed to use by ACPS to identify the enrollment figures of proposed developments. b. Has the applicant discussed the Actual School Enrollment in Existing Townhome Communities and Actual School Enrollment in Existing Multifamily Communities alternative multipliers referenced with staff representatives from Albemarle County Public Schools? Can any documentation be provided that ACPS staff agree with the applicant's assertion that the estimated number of students being generated under the alternative multipliers are accurate? 5. Please see attached ACSA comment #4 regarding sewer utilities. ACSA staff indicate that sewer lines that would serve this project are currently in need of upgrades and may not have adequate capacity. The applicant should contact the City of Charlottesville to discuss the necessary upgrades needed. Furthermore, ACSA staff have indicated that the developer/applicant "will need to sign an agreement stating that the applicant will be responsible for upgrading the necessary sewer segments if capacity is exceeded by this development." 6. VDOT and Transportation Planning staff have several questions and comments about technical aspects of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Please provide Synchro files on a subsequent submittal so that these reviewers can verify the projected delay times between the no -build and build conditions stated in the TIA. a. As stated in the Transportation Planning comments, the TIA's recommended improvements are located along the frontage of the project only, and do not address the anticipated transportation impacts for all of Old Ivy Road. Potential improvements for all of Old Ivy Road should be specified in the TIA. Please contact Transportation Planning staff for specific questions. 7. Please see attached Transportation Planning comments regarding the supplemental information that was provided to identify the road improvements along Old Ivy Road that have occurred since approval of ZMA1985-21. The improvements identified were all required to address site -specific requirements as properties within the corridor developed over time. The TIA shows that the Old Ivy Road corridor still has poor overall operations and further improvements are needed to improve operations and offset additional traffic that would be created through this development. This includes bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as intersection -specific improvements. Planning and Transportation Planning staff would like to discuss thus further with the applicant. a. Per attached Zoning Division comments, additional access points and vehicular, bicycle, and/or pedestrian connections into the proposed development could allow staff to better evaluate the request to amend the ZMA1985-21 proffer as it currently applies to TMPs 60-24C3, 60-24C4, 60-24C1, a 60-24C. 8. Community meeting. Per Section 18-33.4 (K), a community meeting must be held for all ZMAs prior to any public hearings for the project. Staff suggests bringing this project to a community meeting at the October 18, 2021 Places29- Hydraulic Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting. Please contact staff directly to coordinate scheduling the meeting and preparing invitation letters for the community. Section 18-33.18 (B) Application Plan Comments: 1. The Application Plan needs to include a net density calculation so that staff can verify that the total number of units complies with the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Net density is calculated by identifying the total acreage of all future land use designations within the development, and then subtracting the acreage of land classified as Parks & Green Systems future land use designation. The remaining acreage figure is the net acreage. Divide the total number of units proposed by the net acreage figure to obtain the proposed net density. 2. Please see Zoning Division comment #1. Is phasing proposed in this project? If so, please add phase lines and indicate timing for construction of each phase. 3. Please update the overlay zoning district note on the application plan to state "Managed & Preserved Steep Slopes." 4. Please provide a note on the Application Plan identifying the square footage/acreage of Preserved Steep Slopes that are requested to be rezoned on TMP 60-24C3 and 60-24C4. Per comment #4 under General Comments above, if Preserved Steep Slopes are being requested to be rezoned on 60-24C1, also include that square footage/acreage as a note. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 5. Please see Zoning Division comment #2c. The steep slopes of greater than 25% not otherwise disturbed for development should be designated as open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use, and must be maintained in a natural state and not developed with improvements, with the exception of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures, noncommercial recreational uses and structures, public utilities, and stormwater management facilities. 6. Please identify the areas and any amenities that would qualify as passive recreation on the plan. The pond would serve more appropriately as a recreation area with the addition of access through paths or trails to the pond, the addition of benches or viewing areas. Please see Zoning Division comments #2d below for further information. 7. Please address the following related to the Water Protection Ordinance (WPO) stream buffer: please add a note on the site plan the following comment: "The stream buffer(s) shown hereon shall be managed in accordance with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance." 8. Per Engineering comment #1, please adjust grading on plan to reflect 3:1 minimum slopes and reverse benches as required in 18-5.1.28 to confirm proposed impacts to managed/preserved slopes and add the requested note. 9. As stated in the Neighborhood Model comment section below, the Comprehensive Plan and Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan call for bicycle and pedestrian facilities/improvements along Old Ivy Road. The application plan does not show any proposed improvements for bicyclists or pedestrians. As stated in transportation Planning comments, VDOT has approved a bridge replacement project for the bridge located over the Route 250/29 bypass that includes a 4' wide shoulder that could accommodate bicycle or pedestrian facilities. 10. Please see attached Engineering and Transportation Planning comments. The parking spaces shown along the internal travel way raise safety concerns in the current configuration. Vehicles traveling the travel way may speed due to its length, which poses conflicts for vehicles pulling into or out of the perpendicular parking spaces. Staff recommends providing some form of traffic calming measures along the travel way to reduce speed and minimize safety risks. a. As mentioned in the Neighborhood Model section below, if the length of the internal street were reduced to focus development and density at the south end of the project, parking could potentially be reconfigured to reduce safety concerns related to on -street parking and speeding. 11. As stated in the Neighborhood Model comment section and comments from other reviewers attached below, staff suggest substantial revisions to the layout of dwelling units, parking areas, internal travel ways, interparcel connections, and grading within the project that differ from what is currently shown on the application plan. Depending on the applicant's response to those comments, additional comments may be forthcoming regarding the application plan if it is revised to provide an alternative layout Proffers: 1. No new proffers were submitted with the first iteration of this application. If the applicant chooses to submit a proffer statement with a subsequent submittal, additional comments may be forthcoming. 2. Please see Zoning Division comments #3a and #3b regarding the existing proffers that apply to the parcels within this project. Plannin¢ Planning staff's comments are organized as follows: • How the proposal relates to the Comprehensive Plan • The Neighborhood Model analysis • Additional comments from reviewers (See attached) Comprehensive Plan W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Comments on how your project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report that will be prepared for the work session or public hearing. The comments below are in preparation for the Planning Commission review and may change based on direction from the Commission and/or with subsequent submittals. The proposal includes five Tax Map Parcels. Tax Map Parcel (TMP) numbers and existing primary zoning districts are noted below: 1. TMP 06000-00-00-05100 - R1 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District. 2. TMP 06000-00-00-024CO - R15 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District. 3. TMP 06000-00-00-024C1 - R10 and R15 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Overlay District and Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District. 4. TMP 06000-00-00-024C3 - R15 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District, Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District. 5. TMP 06000-00-00-024C4 - R15 Residential; AIA Airport Impact Area Overlay District, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, Managed Steep Slopes Overlay District, Preserved Steep Slopes Overlay District. All five properties are located in Neighborhood 7 Comprehensive Plan Area and are subject to the recommendations of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. In regard to future land use recommendations specifically, the Western Urban Neighborhoods Future Land Use Plan identifies the land use categories that apply to each property. The Western Urban Neighborhoods Future Land Use Plan contained in the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan calls for two future land use classifications on the subject properties. The categories and their general descriptions are WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 listed below, but these can also be found on pages S+W 33 and S+W 34 of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. 1. Urban Density Residential - Primary uses include residential uses of all housing types with densities between 6.01-34 dwelling units/acre (du/acre). Secondary uses that may be acceptable under this classification include retail/commercial uses measuring less than 3,000 sq. ft. and office uses measuring less than 5,000 sq. ft. 2. Parks and Green Systems - parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, please also be advised that all zoning map amendment applications are evaluated relative to the "factors to be considered" specified in County Code §18-33.6. This evaluation will be written in the staff report to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors once the application moved forward to public hearings. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed plans are provided. Pedestrian Orientation This principle is not met. The primary internal street within the development raises concerns for vehicular and pedestrian safety. The current length of the road is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan Strategy #2b that states developments should be laid out in grids as opposed to long dead-end cul-de-sacs. From the entrance onto Old Ivy Road to the end of the cul- de-sac, the distance is approximately 1,940 linear feet. Strategy #2b states that maximum block lengths should be 600 feet. The block break at the internal loop road to the end of the cul-de-sac measures approximately 940 linear feet, which exceeds the recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan. Conflicts with this principle could be addressed by reducing the length of the primary internal street. For example, if density could be added at the south end of the site as opposed to providing the units at the north end where the cul-de-sac is currently shown, the length of the block would be reduced. Furthermore, eliminating the proposed cul- de-sac as currently designed would potentially eliminate the need to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes in order to building the cul-de-sac and the proposed retaining walls. This could result in the Preserved Steep Slopes ZMA request currently under review (ZMA202100009) from being necessary at all in order to develop the site. As stated by Engineering and Transportation Planning staff, on -street parking along the travel way poses safety concerns due to vehicles speeding because of the length of the street. Traffic calming measures could reduce these risks. Alternatively, reducing the length of the travel way could result in a more compact development form that would prevent vehicles from speeding and posing safety issues with the on -street parking. Additionally, the southern end of the development does not show and sidewalks or other pedestrian infrastructure being provided along Old Ivy Road to allow pedestrians to access the multifamily buildings. More information can be found under the Relegated Parking principle analysis below. Mixture of Uses This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions. The proposal is providing three housing types (single-family detached residential, single- family attached residential, and multifamily units). Open space areas are also proposed. These use types are generally consistent with the primary uses called for under each future land use classifications recommended by the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 However, the proposed layout/location of residential lots and other infrastructure (such as roads) is not consistent in areas recommended as Parks & Green Systems future land use by the Southern & Western Neighborhood Master Plan. In order to be consistent with the future land use recommendations from the Master Plan, all land uses (such as residential units and lots) should be located on areas of the properties recommended as the Urban Density Residential future land use category. Areas of the properties designated as Parks & Green Systems should only feature the use types specified in the Land Use Categories and Guidelines Table on page S+W 34 of the Master Plan. The current proposal is not consistent with the future land use recommendations. As mentioned in the Pedestrian Orientation principle above and elsewhere in this letter, there are ways to shrink the area dedicated to residential uses and minimize the impacts to land designated as the Parks & Green Systems future land use category. Neighborhood Centers This principle is not applicable to the request. The Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan does not recommend any centers on the subject property. The nearest center is located at the Ivy Road Shopping Center, which is located along Route 250 and is not adjacent to the subject properties. Mixture of Housing Types This principle is partially met but could be strengthened through revisions. and Affordability A mix of housing types is provided and the application is consistent with that aspect of Strategy #2g from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is not consistent with the affordability component of Strategy #2g, or Chapter 9 Strategy #6b of the Comprehensive Plan. The County's current housing policy recommends that new residential rezonings provide 15% of the total proposed units as affordable housing. For rental units, the rental rate is 50% AMI. The application currently only proposes to provide 15% affordable units representing the difference between the number that of units that could be developed under current zoning, and the number of units that could be redeveloped following rezoning of the property. The narrative also states that affordable units will be provided at 80% AMI. This is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Please see comments from Stacy Pethia (attached below) for additional information on the County's affordable housing policy and how that relates to the proposed ZMA. Relegated Parking This principle is not fully met. As shown on various sheets of the Application Plan, parking areas will be located directly adjacent to Old Ivy Road at the southern end of the development. As stated earlier in the letter, each of these properties are located within the Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Zoning District. To be consistent with the relegated parking principle and EC Design Guidelines, buildings should be located along the property frontage and face the street so that parking can be provided to the rear or sides of buildings. Strategy #2n from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states that "A building should never turn its back to the street; the front entry to a building should face the street. Walkways should be provided from the sidewalks along the street to the front entry. Having on -street parking or parking to the side or rear of the building means that pedestrians do not have to cross major parking areas when walking from a sidewalk to a building." If the multifamily buildings were moved so that their entrances face Old Ivy Road and no parking is provided between the right-of-way and the entrances, the proposal would be more consistent with this principle. Currently, a large parking area separates the buildings from the frontage. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Please see additional comments from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) planner regarding alternate layouts that would be more consistent with the Neighborhood Model principles and EC Design Guidelines. Interconnected Streets and This principle is not fully met. Transportation Networks The County's Zoning Ordinance, Section 18-32.7.2.2, requires all streets and travel ways within a development to be extended to abutting property lines. Currently there are no interconnections provided. Per this principle, cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged in within developments. As noted elsewhere in this letter, staff highly recommends revisiting the layout with the long dead-end cul-de-sac at the northern end of the development. Providing additional interconnections and reducing the length of the cul- de-sac and creating higher density closer to Old Ivy Road would be more consistent with this principle. There appears to be potential to provide connections to an adjacent parcel to the east, specifically TMP 060132-00-00-00100. Although TMP 060132-00-00-00100 is subject to an approved application plan (ZMA1996000020) and is under different ownership than the subject properties, the portions of TMP 060132-00-00-00100 directly adjacent to this proposal do have future development potential. Has the applicant explored providing a vehicular connection in this area to the adjoining parcel? If so, please explain why no connections is currently proposed. Multimodal Transportation This principle is not fully met. Opportunities Page 62 of the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan contains recommendations for multimodal transportation opportunities in the vicinity of this project. The plan recommends developing "alternatives to provide for safe and convenient access to and through the Lewis Mountain/University Heights area by improving and extending the sidewalk network along the north side of Old Ivy Road" to the intersection of Route 250/Old Ivy Road. The application does not indicate whether any sidewalk improvements would be installed along and/or beyond the property frontage to be consistent with this recommendation. Per the applicant's narrative, the developer is willing to discuss inclusion of a transit stop at or within the project. Please contact Transportation Planning staff regarding this matter, as it could be a suitable opportunity to create a public transit option and result in the project achieving greater consistency with this principle. Per attached comments from Parks & Recreation and Transportation Planning staff, inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements along Old Ivy Road would help bring the project closer to consistency with this principle. Parks, Recreational This principle is not fully met. Amenities, and Open Space Strategy #21 from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states "important environmental features, such as floodplains, critical slopes, and forested areas shown on the Development Area Master Plans form green systems that should be protected." Per the future land use plan recommendations from the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, large areas of this project are recommended as Parks & Green Systems future land use. This is because there are extensive areas of Preserved and Managed Steep Slopes, and a WPO stream buffer located in the western, central, and norther portions of the project However, the application plan shows extensive development inside of areas designated by that land use category. To be fully consistent with this principle, uses within the project should be consistent with applicable land use WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 designations. As such, lots and travel ways would need to be relocated outside of the Parks & Green Systems future land use designation. Per attached comments from the Parks & Recreation Department, the re-routing of the existing Rivanna Trail through areas of steep slopes (exceeding 25%) would create a trail system that is not user-friendly or easily navigable. P&R staff recommend that any changes to the trail result in an improvement that can support pedestrian and bicycle users in accordance with best design practices. See additional comments from Parks & Recreation below. Additionally, Zoning staff recommend that any areas with slopes greater than 25% that are not proposed to be disturbed be located within open space areas. See attached comments below. Buildings and Spaces of This principle is not fully met. Human Scale The narrative states that all buildings will be four stories or less, with some being two - stories. However, the application does not provide any renderings identifying the architectural details, scale, massing, and form of proposed buildings. Without such details, it is not possible for staff to say that the proposed buildings will meet Strategy #2m from this principle and also comply with Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. A primary concern of staff is the orientation of the apartment buildings and their current location, which is not parallel to Old Ivy Road/the Entrance Corridor. Additionally, more details are needed on the form of buildings in order to identify the transition between unit types proposed. As specified elsewhere in this letter, an alternate layout of buildings and streets within the project would result in a more organized and cohesive form. Please see attached ARB comments for further details. Redevelopment This principle is met. Currently developed parcels would be redeveloped under this proposal. Respecting Terrain and This principle is not fully met. Careful Grading and Re- grading of Terrain Strategy #2q from Chapter 8 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends that "Where grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional, and easy to maintain, and promote interconnectivity of parcels. In all instances, developers and builders should work to preserve areas of environmental sensitivity shown on the Master Plans." The request to rezone and allow disturbance of Preserved Steep Slopes on TMPs 60- 24C3 and 60-24C4 is not consistent with the future land use classification (Parks & Green Systems) called for on the west side of the project Eliminating the cul-de-sac at the north and focusing density in the south and east ends of the project would eliminate the need to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes, and thus the entire request sought through ZMA202100009. Per Planning and ARB comments, less severe grading is highly recommended in order to be consistent with this principle. W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Clear Boundaries Between This principle is not applicable to the request. The nearest development area boundary the Development Areas and is located approximately 1/3 mile to the northwest on the opposite side of the Route the Rural Area 250/Route 29 bypass. Department of Community Development - Zoning Division Requested changes, see attached comments from Lea Brumfield, Brumfield@albemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Planning Division- Transportation Planning Requested changes, see attached comments from Kevin McDermott, kmcdermott@albemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Planning Division - Architectural Review Board (ARB) Requested changes, see attached comments from Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Engineering Division Requested changes, see attached comments from Frank Pohl, fpohl@albemarle.org. Department of Community Development - Inspections Division See attached comments from Betty Slough, bslough@albemarle.org. Department of Fire & Rescue See attached comments from Howard Lagomarsino, hlagomarsino@albemarle.org. Department of Parks & Recreation Requested changes, see attached comments from Tim Padalino, tpadalino@albemarle.org. Department of Social Services - Housing Requested changes, see attached comments from Stacy Pethia, spethia@albemarle.org. VDOT Requested changes, see attached comments from Max Greene, max.greene@vdot.virginia.gov. ACSA See attached comments from Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthority.org. Virginia Department of Health No objection, see attached letter from Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov. Action after Receipt of Comments Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for (October 19, 2021) which represents 76 days from acceptance of your application for review. From this comment letter you will see that staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without changes, staff cannot recommend approval and your application will be taken to the Commission as originally submitted. After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on the "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter' which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blangille@albemarle.or Sincerely, W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 L'�' �w Cameron Langille Principal Planner Planning Division, Department of Community Development W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 V LEA BRUMFIELD County of Albemarle Senior Planner II, Zoning COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ibrumfield@albemarle.orx tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3023 To: Cameron Langille, Principal Planner Date: 2 September 2021 Re: Initial comments for ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences, and ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved Slopes to Managed The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted applications. 1. Prior approvals and applicable proffers a. ZMA1982-11 - approved a rezoning of 33.549 acres from R-1 to R-10 on October 20, 1982 for the establishment of a continuing care facility. Proffers included provisions on building types, a maximum residential apartment number, details on the services and architecture of the continuing care facility campus, landscaped buffer requirements, and a transportation proffer requiring the development of frontage on Old Ivy Road, and the installation of a deceleration turning lane providing easy access into the site and visual site distances improvement. This ZMA applied to TMP 60-24C1, included in this application. b. ZMA1985-21 - approved rezoning of 28.29 acres from R-1 to R-15 with proffers limiting the density of the rezoned parcel to the existing R-1 density until Old Ivy Road was "improved to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County." This change was intended to permit the property owners to develop multi -family units on the parcel, while avoiding increasing the density of the parcel beyond the capacity of the existing access on Old Ivy Road. This ZMA applied to TMP 60-24C, included in this application. c. ZMA1987-08 - amended the 1982 approval for the continuing care facility, providing additional details on the arrangement and landscaping of the facility, approved on October 7, 1987. This ZMA applied to TMP 60-24C1, included in this application. 2. Application plan a. Phasing. Is phasing expected for this project? If so, address phase in the application plan. b. Interconnectivity. The current proposal involves a single point of entry on Old Ivy Road, culminating in a cul-de-sac within the property. Per Section 18-32.7.2.2, all streets within a development must be extended to abutting property lines to provide interconnections to adjoining property. Additionally, interconnectivity within the site is strongly preferred by the Neighborhood Model principles, avoiding culs- de-sac and single -point access developments wherever possible. c. Open space. The steep slopes of greater than 25% not otherwise disturbed for development should be designated as open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use, and must be maintained in a natural state and not developed with improvements, with the exception of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures, noncommercial recreational uses and structures, public utilities, and stormwater management facilities. d. Recreation. Page 2 of the application plan lists trails as provision for active recreation, but describes access to the pond as "passive recreation." Mark the passive recreation area on the application plan, and provide for pedestrian access to the passive recreation area. The pond would serve more appropriately as a recreation area with the addition of access through paths or trails to the pond, the addition of benches or viewing areas. Passive recreation with no improvements is only permitted if "no other suitable area is available on the site." Additionally, while passive recreation of "existing wooded or steep areas" may qualify as recreation areas, the area must be labeled as such and dedicated to intended to be used for the passive recreation area is required. WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 e. Water Protection Ordinance buffer. Note on the site plan the following comment: "The stream buffer(s) shown hereon shall be managed in accordance with the Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance." 3. Proffers a. The proffers associated with ZMA1982-11 and ZMA1987-08 are associated with the University Village use located on abutting TMPs, and removal of TMP 60-24C1 from those ZMA approvals is consistent with the approved continuing care facility. Zoning staff recommends the removal of TMP 60-24C1 from ZMA1982-11 and ZMA1987-08. b. The proffers associated with ZMA1985-21 explicitly address the development of TMPs 60-24C3 and 60- 24C beyond R-1 permitted density, requiring improvement of Old Ivy Road, "to the satisfaction of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County." The wording of the proffer was revised between its recommendation at the September 3 1985 Planning Commission Public Hearing, when it read "to the satisfaction of Albemarle County," and its adoption at the October 11, 1985 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing, where the adopted proffer specified that the road must be improved to the satisfaction of the Board. Zoning staff recommends revision of this proffer based on the recommendations of the transportation planner and VDOT, in addition to pursuing additional access points to the site both for connectivity and for traffic alleviation on Old Ivy Road. 4. ZMA202100009 - Slopes a. Application ZMA202100008 cannot be approved as requested without the approval of ZMA202100009, as the zoning map currently proposes development across the slopes. Zoning has no objection to the steep slopes map amendment of the preserved slopes to managed, ZMA202100009, given approval by the County Engineer. b. However, per Section 18-30.7.3, preserved slopes are any slopes part of a system of slopes "associated with or abutting a water feature including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir or pond," due to the direct impact disturbing such slopes would have on the abutting water feature. As a 1.06 acre pond lies directly southwest of the preserved slopes proposed for reclassification, the disturbance of the preserved slopes would potentially cause erosion and run-off to distress the existing pond. W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG 401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 MEMORANDUM To: Applicant From: Kevin McDermott; Planning Manager Date: September 20, 2021 Re: ZMA202100008 — Old Ivy Residences Transportation Comments Phone: 434.296.5832 www.albemarle.ora The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation Planning has reviewed the above referenced plan and associated traffic impact analysis as submitted by Timmons Group (July 2021) and offers the following comments: Traffic Impact Analysis • Table 2-3; what do the footnotes and hashtag in the table refer to? • The delays at the Old Ivy at 29 Off Ramp/Route 846 somehow improve between from the existing conditions to the 2025 no -build conditions. The 2025 build conditions result in significant increases in delay. These should be verified. • The 2025 build conditions show significantly increased delays and queuing at nearly all intersections of Old Ivy Road, many quite a bit beyond the 2025 no -build conditions. The recommended improvements from the TIA are only across the development frontage of Old Ivy Residences not addressing all impacts from the development on the entire segment of Old Ivy Road. Recommendations should include potential improvements that could be made to address all significant impacts. Narrative • On page 5 applicant discusses improvements that have been made to Old Ivy Road in order to establish that the 1985 proffer on ZMA1985-21 requiring improvements to Old Ivy Road has been satisfied. However, most of these improvements are simply addressing specific site access issues and the results of the TIA show that although some improvements have been made the corridor continues to operate poorly and is in need of significant additional improvements. These needs include addressing bicycle and pedestrian needs along Old Ivy Road for its entire length and intersection improvements at all of the Old Ivy Road intersections located west of the 29 Bypass. Application Plan • Please show proposed pedestrian improvements on Old Ivy Road. VDOT's funded bridge replacement of Old Ivy Road over 29/250 Bypass proposes a 4' shoulder on one side of the bridge to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Improvements to the corridor proposed by your development should consider access to this. • Was a secondary access point considered, possibly a right-in/right-out, to help distribute trips? • The proposed travelway/private street network is not ideal. Having a single roadway serving such a large development will likely result in safety and access issues. Providing more alternate connections throughout the development would be an improvement. Could something with a more grid like pattern be considered? • The long straight street will encourage speeding and combining that with on -street parking poses a safety risk. Have creative traffic calming techniques been considered (speed bumps would not be considered creative)? County of Albemarle COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579 Phone: 434.296.5832 www.albemarle.ora • In a large development such as this bicycle and pedestrian interconnectivity will be an important consideration both internally and externally. Additional information regarding that should be provided. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Kevin M. McDermott Planning Manager Albemarle County 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 296-5841 Ext. 3414 kmcdermottCc@al bemarl e.org Review Comments for ZMA2O21OOOO8 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Friday, August 27, m Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski ----2 CDD ARB Requested Changes The proposal has been considered relative to the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines and the following comments are provided: 1. It is anticipated that the development as currently laid out will have a disorderly appearance as viewed from the Entrance Corridor (EC). The development does not appear organized, and it does not have the appearance of a cohesive whole. The apartment buildings are not oriented parallel to the EC street. Some single family lots are oriented parallel to the EC, but their backs are to the street and there is insufficient space for on -site landscape screening. The narrative states that the development is oriented around the existing pond, but the building locations don't actually respond to the pond. An altemate layout that creates an overall organized and cohesive development is recommended. Building fronts oriented to the EC are preferred and recommended; however, a landscape buffer might mitigate building fronts that don't face the EC. 2. The proposed grading is severe, suggesting that the rolling terrain that is typical of the area is not being preserved and that a continuous landscape will not be created. A layout that requires less severe grading is recommended. 3. Although a mix of unit types may be desirable, the layout does not appear to support comfortable transitions between types. Additional detail on the appearance of the proposed buildings could help determine the extent of visual impacts. 4. ARB review/approval will be required for the site plan for this development and for the architectural designs of all but the detached single-family residences. Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 0g/07/2021 Review Comments for ZMA2O21OOOO8 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Monday, September 20, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina Requested Changes -AII proposed slopes are requested to be 3A or less. Add a note and adjust grading on plan to reflect 3:1 minimum slopes and reverse benches as required in 18-5.1.28 to confirm proposed impacts to managed/preserved slopes. - Provide the estimated number of trips per day where the perpendicular parking begins. Even though a subdivision is not proposed, I am concerned that the main travelway will function as a street. Traffic calming measures are recommended to ensure vehicle speeds are not excessive. Additionally, designated pedestrian crossings may be needed to allow for safe and convenient access across the travelway. Page. 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 09/22/2021 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Friday, August 20, 2021 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Betty Slough CDD Inspections Requested Changes Add the following note to the general notes page: Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit Walls exceeding 4 feet in height require a stamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined in the USBC. Add the following note to the general notes page: Accessible parking spaces, access isles, and accessible route shall be installed in accordance with ICC ANSI At17.1-09 and the 2015 Virginia Construction Code. Add the following note to the general notes page: ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure located on private property MUST have a visual inspection performed by the building department. Add the following note to the general notes page: Where the flood level rims of plumbing fixtures are below the elevation of the manhole cover of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, the fixtures shall be protected by a backwater valve installed in the building drain, branch of the building drain or horizontal branch serving such fixtures. Plumbing fixtures having flood level rims above the elevation of the manhole cover of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge through a backwater valve. Add the following to the general notes page: All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks. Note to developer: Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited. Plan accordingly. Add the following note to the general notes page: Buildings or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a demolition permit. Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such from Albemarle County and VDOLI. Contact VDOLI for their additional requirements and permits for demolition projects at 540-562-3580 x131. Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 09/07/2021 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Wednesday, August 2-9 2021 DepartmenUDivision/Agency: Review Status: Howard Lagomarsino —E Fire Rescue No Objection Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: M/07/2021 Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Tim Padalino Parks See Recommendations 1. The existing segment of the Rivanna Trail that is currently on the subject property is a major recreational asset and benefit to the general public. ACPR supports the applicants' continued inclusion of and accommodations for the RT in the development proposal. However, ACPR has concerns about the proposed project's impacts to the existing RT These include: the apparent consequence of the RT being re-routed up/down steep slopes (equal to or greater than 25% slope, which is not user-friendly or sustainable); the RT being changed from an existing primitive trail to a proposed new sidewalk segment; and the apparent/potential "pinch point" of the trail alignment between a retaining wall and fence in the southwestern comer of the subject property. Therefore, ACPR recommends that the project generally result in an equally good or improved Rivanna Trail in that vicinity, for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public as well as future residents of the proposed project. If the re-route of the RT onto a new sidewalk is unavoidable due to property -specific constraints, then ACPR strongly recommends that bike/ped hest practices be used (including but not limited to signage, crosswalks at private street crossing, etc.) for maximizing safety and convenience, and optimizing user experience. 2. Old Ivy Road is currently sub -standard and generally unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Because of these conditions, and in consideration of the subject property's location in proximity to UVA and other "centers" as well as it's location along the Three Notched Road planning study corridor and future shared -use path alignment, ACPR recommends that the project incorporate high -quality on -street bikelped infrastructure along Old Ivy Road for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public as well as future residents of the proposed project. 3. ACPR staff remain available to communicate further regarding these issues, and to discuss and evaluate potential ways to try to address these bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational issues at conceptual and/or technical levels of detail. Thank you. Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 09/22/2021 Review Comments for ZMA2O21OOOO8 Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Friday, August 20, 2021 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Stacy Pethia Housing Department Requested Changes The applicant is proposing that 15% of the units representing the difference between the number that of units that could be developed under current zoning, and the number of unis that could be redeveloped following rezoning of the property will be offered as affordable housing. Chapter 9, Strategy 6a (page 9.12) of the Comprehensive Plan recommends 15% of all units developed under rezonings be offered as affordable housing. The 15% applies to all units constructed, not just the additional units gained the rezoning. Page: � County of Albemarle Printed On: M/07/2021 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701 Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940 September 16, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Cameron Langille Re: Old Ivy Development — Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-2021-00008 & ZMA-2021-00009 Review # 1 Dear Mr. Langille: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Timmons Group, dated 19 July 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. Do the existing road improvements, plus the proposed turn lane installations, satisfy the Board of Supervisors with respect to the 1985 Proffer? 2. Comments specific to the Traffic Impact Analysis: a. On page 2-4, the third paragraph will need to be revised as it contains some typos. Please provide a copy of the Synchro files for the AM and PM peak under both the No Build and Build conditions. b. The AM queue length under the existing condition for the WB shared-thru and -right lane at Ivy Rd & Old Garth Rd appears to be excessive. Without the Synchro model, it is unclear whether the signal timing used in the analysis was current. c. Please verify the queue length for the SB Left-Thru under the existing condition at Old Ivy Rd / Faulconer Rd during the AM peak hour. It appears that the reported queue length is approximately 285 feet longer than what is shown for the same time under the 2025 Background condition. d. Should Figure 5-1 be placed prior to Table 5-1, in the order that these are referenced in the body of the report? e. Figures 6-1 through 6-3 referenced on page 6-1 are not shown in the document. Can these be included in future submittal? Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING September 16, 2021 Attn: Cameron Langille A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Doug McAvoy Jr., P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency Review Comments for ZMA202100008 Project Name. OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL Date Completed: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 Department/Division/Agency Review Status: Reviewer Richard Nelson ACSA See Recommendations ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT— Information from Service Providers To be filled out by ACSA for ZMA's and SP's 1) Is this site in the jurisdictional area for water and/or sewer? Yes 2) What is the distance to the closest water and sewer line, if in the jurisdictional area? Proposed sewer main connection is located near Huntington Village. Proposed water main connection is across Ivy Road. 3) Are there water pressure issues which may affect the proposed use as shown on plan? Water pressures average around 75 psi. 4) Are there major upgrades needed to the water distribution or sewer collection system of which the applicant and staff should be aware? Several sewer segments along Ivy Road have been identified as needing upgrading by the developer to serve the site. The City of Charlottesville has also indicated that their sewer segments may not have adequate capacity as well The developer will need to coordinate with the City on their requirements. A sewer agreement will need to be signed by the applicant stating the applicant will be responsible for upgrading the necessary sewer segments if capacity is exceeded by this development. 5) Are there other service provision issues such as the need for grinder pumps? N/A 6) Which issues should be resolved at the SP/ZMA stage and which issues can be resolved at the site plan/plat stage? Discussion regarding sewer capacity availability has already started with the engineer. 7) If the project is a large water user, what long term impacts or implications do you forsee? 8) Additional comments? RWSA and City of Charlottesville sewer capacity certification will be required prior to any site plan approval. Page. 1 --:1 County of Albemarle Printed On: M/07/2021 Nue Edge HeoNh Dishkt VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT Of HEALtH i 9 6°��anrn `_°ti Cameron Langille, Principal Planner Kevin McCollum, Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Old Ivy Residences Zoning Map Amendments ZMA202100008 & ZM4,202100009 Mr. Langille and McCollum: ChorlottesvllleWbemarle HeaHh Deportment 1138 Rose Hli Drive Chodollesvile, VA 22903 C OCO 434-972-6200 1 tax 434-972-4310 August 16, 2021 As requested, I've reviewed the site plan, dated 7/19/21. I do not have any comments or concerns regarding the proposed amendments. If there are any questions, please give me a call, 434-972-4306. Sincerely, Alan Mazurowski Environmental Health Supervisor Blue Ridge Health District alan.mazurowskikvdh.vir ig nia. og_v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER FIRST SET OF COMMENTS Your project has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission for October 19, 2021, which is 76 days from the date your application was accepted for review. State Code requires a 90-day review by the Planning Commission unless the applicant requests deferral. As you will read in this comment letter, staff recommends changes to your project to help you achieve approval. Without these changes, staff cannot recommend approval to the Planning Commission. If you need more time to make these changes, and if you prefer to move forward to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval, you must request deferral. If you choose not to request deferral, staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Instructions for requesting a deferral are outlined below. Within one week please do one of the following: (1) Request deferral, as required by Section 33.11, if you will resubmit, but would like to receive comments on the revised submittal, and understand the Planning Commission date will be later than October 19, 2021. (2) Proceed to Planning Commission public hearing on October 19, 2021. (3) Withdraw your application (1) Deferral requested To request deferral, you must submit a request in writing to defer action by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The request may be made by email. Please note that your request for deferral may not be accepted and the County may retain the initial scheduled hearing date. If your request for deferral is accepted the application will be deemed withdrawn if the application is not reactivated within six months of the request for deferral or within 32 months from the time the application was determined or deemed complete. (2) Proceed to Planning Commission Public Hearing on October 19, 2021 At this time, you may request that your application proceed to public hearing with the Planning Commission on October 19, 2021. With this option no additional documents will be accepted, and staff will take your project to the Commission as originally submitted, but without a recommendation of approval. Revised 9-17-19 MCN (3) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond An application shall be deemed to be voluntarily withdrawn if the applicant requests deferral pursuant to subsection 33.11 and fails to provide within 90 days before the end of the deferral period all of the information required to allow the Board to act on the application, or fails to request a deferral as provided in subsection 33.11(D). Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. Revised 9-17-19 MCN Resubmittal of information for �$��°F"`8 Zoning Map Amendment t ��RG/NyP PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,958 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,479 ❑ 4% Technology surcharge $59.16 TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE $1 538.16 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $4,141 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $2,070 ❑ 4% Technology surcharge $82.80 TOTAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RESUBMISSION FEE $2,152.80 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $237 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.19 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Fee Amowt $ Date Paid By who9 Receipt Ck# By: Community Development Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 7/1/2021 Page 1 of 1