HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100009 Correspondence 2021-11-15WILLIAMS MULLEN
OLD IVY RESIDENCES
ZMA 2021-00008
ZMA 2021-00009
Response to Comments
To: Cameron Langille, Principal Planner
Date: November 15, 2021
No new proffers were submitted with the first iteration of either application. If the applicant chooses to
submit aproffer 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
requiredwith 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.
Response: The plan has been updated to be titled "Concept Plan". Proffers are provided with this
resubmittal that address commitments to the major elements of the Concept Plan and propose a
proportional contribution to potential future traffic improvements.
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.
Response: Per email from County Housing Policy Manager Stacy Pethia dated 10/12/2021, 80% AMI "has been
standard practice" under the County's Affordable Housing Policy and is acceptable as proposed here.
Regarding Ch. 8 Strategy #2g: the development offers a variety of housing types that includes apartments,
duplexes, townhomes, and single family. Within these types are a variety of sizes and number of bedrooms.
Given the offering of types and sizes which will correspond to different price points for different income level
residents, we believe the proposal meets this strategy. In addition, the majority of the project acreage is
already zoned R-15 residential, such that additional units are not proposed for those parcels. It is appropriate
and reasonable to only require that the 15% affordable housing requirement apply only to those units over -and -
above the number of units already allowed by right under the Property's existing zoning.
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?
Response: Proffers have been provided that include the affordable housing as a major element within
the proffered Concept Plan.
b. Please see comments from the Housing Planner attached to this letter. Planning staff encourage
the applicant to contact Stacy Pethia, soethiana albemarle.ora, to obtain further information on the
County'sHousing Policy and how the application can be revised to be consistent with affordable
housing goals.
Response: As noted, we have contacted Stacy Pethia and discussed her comments. She clarified her
comments in an email to our project team dated 10/12/2021.
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.
Response: See attached narrative with updated parcels for the preserved steep slopes request. The confusion
is due to the difference between the representation of the boundaries of these two parcels in the County GIS
viewer versus the boundaries of the parcels as recently surveyed following the invalidation of the Certificate of
Take for TMP 60-24C4. To help explain this disparity, the Applicant notes that TMP 60-24C4 was "created" by
virtue of certificate of take (C-798017) at D.B. 1761, PG. 614. The certificate of take was then invalidated by the
order found at D.B. 5330, PG. 110, and ownership reverted to The Filthy Beast, LLC . The invalidation of the
Certificate of Take also had the legal effect of eliminating the boundary between parcels 24C4 and 24C1, such
that now they are now once again combined into a single 5-acre parcel 24C1. The physical location of the
preserved slope area is within the boundary of what was previously parcel 24C4, and as that area is shown on
the County GIS as parcel 24C4. However, since that land area is now technically part of parcel 24C1 again
(even though it is not yet so reflected on the County GIS, or by the County Assessor's records), we felt it
accurate to include parcel 24C1 in the list of parcels that are subject to ZMA 2021-00009.
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.
Response: The County Public School Division's Long Range Planning Advisory Committee has released
an updated study and list of recommendations dated September 9, 2021, which were presented to the
School Board. These recommendations include a middle school study, and recommendation to fund the
High School Center II project. Both of these recommendations to address existing capacity issues are
needed without the Old Ivy Residences project. If funded, the High School Center II project will help
relieve capacity at Albemarle High School.
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 narrative is the calculator that County staff have been directed to
use by ACPS to identify the enrol lmentfigures of proposed developments.
Response: Noted, thank you.
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 thealternative multipliers are accurate?
Response: We explained our methodology in an email to Maya Kumazawa, who responded that our
,'methodology seems sound" but that she would recommend using 2019-2020 enrollment figures since
that was the last "typical" year prior to enrollment changes caused by COVID-19. Ms. Kumazawa
supplied us with the Subdivision Yield Analysis prepared by Cooperative Strategies on August 23, 2021
and recommended that we use the 2019-20 Student Yield by Boundary data in that report. Our
narrative has been revised accordingly.
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 responsiblefor upgrading the necessary sewer segments if capacity is exceeded by this
development."
Response: The Applicant understands that existing capacity issues in the ACSA and downstream City of
Charlottesville sewer systems need to be addressed. The Applicant is actively engaging ACSA and the City
of Charlottesville to explore all options for the sewer connection. The City of Charlottesville has been
contacted to further assess the potential downstream evaluations and improvements. The Applicant is also
exploring a connection to the north where ACSA capacity is not a concern.
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
canverify the projected delay times between the no -build and build conditions stated in the TIA.
Response: Synchro files utilized in the analysis have been provided with this submittal to both VDOT and
Albemarle County.
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.
Response: The Old Ivy Road corridor has existing operational and queuing issues. The Project's
additional site traffic would marginally increase delays, but the underlying existing issues are not
attributable to the Project. The TIA recommended improvements within ROW that is controlled by the
Applicant. Nevertheless, the updated Concept Plan now shows a sidewalk along the Property's
frontage with Old Ivy Road, and a proposed sidewalk from the Project entrance across Old Ivy Road to
provide convenient pedestrian access to the established sidewalk along the south side of Old Ivy Road.
The new sidewalk on the Property will also provide an established pedestrian crossing for the public
when using the Rivanna Trail and crossing Old Ivy Road to where the Trail starts again. Additionally, the
project is proffering funds to contribute to VDOT improvements as they undertake initiatives it has been
developing after years of study.
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.
Response: The updated project Concept Plan provides pedestrian facilities along the entire frontage of
the property to allow for future connection of bicycle/pedestrian facilities installed by Albemarle County
and/or VDOT. The Applicant also will install turn lane improvements at the proposed site entrance to Old
Ivy Road as shown on the updated Concept Plan.
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.
Response: We have worked with Staff to schedule the Community Meeting for November 15, 2021 at the
Places29-Hydraulic CAC.
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.
Response: Noted, thank you. See sheet 8 of the Concept Plan for the areas proposed as Green/Open
space (8.37 acres) for use in the net density calculation. Net density calculations are provided on Sheet 8
of the Concept Plan based on a total of 490 units (resulting in net density of 18.1 DUA), as well as 525
units (19.4 DUA net density).
Please note that these calculations were made by subtracting 8.37 acres of Green/Open Space from the
total acreage of the site. We have not used the acreage that corresponds to the current Parks & Green
Systems designation because the current designation is over -inclusive. The history of this designation on
the site is explained below.
When the Southern and Western Master Plan was adopted in 2015, the Virginia Department of
Transportation owned TMP 60-24C3 and 24C4 for the proposed Western Bypass right of way. As a result,
this area was designated as Parks and Green Systems, as was typical practice for such public lands at the
time. Since that time, the Western Bypass project was cancelled, and VDOT transferred the property back
to its most recent private owners, in 2016. Prior to the 2015 Master Plan, all of the Project area, including
TMP 60-24C3 and TMP 60- 24C4 were designated as Urban Density. During the preapplication meeting
with County staff, David Benish stated that the County recognizes the history of this redesignation, and it
would be taken into account during the review of this application for consistency with the Comprehensive
Plane. Mr. Benish stated that the focus should be on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas
within TMP 60-24C3 and TMP 60-24C4.
In the recently adopted Crozet Master Plan areas that had previously been designated for Parks and Open
Space, but that did not have any sensitive environmental areas, or that had not otherwise been planned
and programed for parks, trails, and public uses, were intentionally re -designated for other uses. The
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have provided similar direction on recent rezonings. The
Concept Plan for the Project mirrors that approach in that it preserves those areas that are actually
sensitive and utilizes other areas for development so as to use the scarce development area land more
efficiently. This concept is included in the following provisions of the Comprehensive Plan:
• Objective 4: Use Development Area land efficiently to prevent premature expansion of the
Development areas
• Objective 5: Promote density within the Development Areas to help create new compact urban
places
• Strategy 5b: Encourage developers to build at the higher end of the density range, on greenfield
sites, provided that development will be in keeping with design recommendations in the
Neighborhood Model
• Strategy 5c: Encourage developers to build within the density range recommended in the Master
Plans on infill sites
• Objective 6: Promote infill and redevelopment that is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods
and uses
From the Implementation Section of the Comprehensive Plan:
o Development Areas - Indicators of Progress:
5. Increase in residential proximity to public transit, schools, parks, libraries, and grocery
stores.
In light of the history of the Parks & Green Space designation on the site, and the recent approach taken
by the Board of Supervisors, it is reasonable and appropriate to use an alternative acreage that
corresponds to the environmentally sensitive area of the site when calculating net density. As shown on
the Concept Plan, these areas amount to 8.37 acres of the site.
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.
Response: Phasing is not expected, but the final decision will be made at the site plan stage.
3. Please update the overlay zoning district note on the application plan to state "Managed & Preserved Steep
Slopes."
Response: The Concept Plan has been revised accordingly.
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.
Response: Note #6 on Sheet 2 of the Concept Plan has been updated to include the acreage of preserved
slopes (1.55 AC) that are requested to be rezoned on TMP 60-24C3, 60-24C4, and 60-24C1. Please also
refer to the updated narrative for ZMA 2021-00009 that is included with these resubmittal materials.
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.
Response: It is our intent to designate a large amount of undisturbed area as open space on the site
around the existing pond and outfall from the pond to preserve as much of the natural land around the
Rivanna Trail as possible. On sheet 8 of the updated Concept Plan, we have more clearly identified the
area proposed as open space, which area has also been used for the net density calculations.
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, theaddition of benches or viewing areas. Please see Zoning Division comments #2d below for
further information.
Response: With the pond as a centerpiece for both passive and active recreation on the site, a sidewalk,
trail and pathway network are woven within the neighborhood. Along the interconnected network
throughout the project the applicant's current plans include a series of fields, courts, grilling/picnic areas,
and benches to add active and passive amenities throughout. The precise details will be determined at the
site plan stage, and some of these conceptual amenities are illustrated on the updated Illustrative Concept
Plan included with this resubmittal.
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 withthe Albemarle County Water Protection Ordinance."
Response: This note has been added to the Concept Plan as note 3 on sheet 9 (top left). Further, it should
be noted that the WPO buffer shown on the updated Concept Plan set is based on the Army Corps of
Engineers approved Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination extents of the perennial stream with a 100 foot
buffer (refer to the letters from the Army Corps that were included with our initial application package).
Pursuant to Section 17-600.A, within a development area the WPO is defined as a 100 buffer off perennial
streams and contiguous nontidal wetlands as described by note 1 on sheet 4 (top left).
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.
Response: It is our opinion the zoning ordinance section cited is not applicable to the grading on this project for
the following reasons. The conceptual grading illustrated on this Concept Plan will be included within a future
Site Plan submission to Albemarle County. The Zoning ordinance section cited specifically states the section is
applicable to clean earth fill activities or inert waste fill which are not established or operated in conjunction with
a Site Plan or Subdivision. We kindly ask that this comment be clarified for applicability to the project so we may
understand if this is a Zoning Ordinance requirement or a recommendation from staff applying Zoning
Ordinance guidance in a different interpretation. We also kindly ask that this comment be clarified whether it will
be strictly applied at such time when we get to the Site Plan level as it is our understanding 2:1 slopes have
historically been permitted in Albemarle County on Site Plans. We do expect to comply with 18-30.7.5 Grading
Standards within the Steep Slopes Overlay District at the Site Plan level. It is our intent to provide surface water
diversions with storm drainage infrastructure to protect all proposed slopes associated with the development.
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.
Response: A sidewalk has been added to the frontage along Old Ivy Road, as well as a cross walk at the
Old Ivy Road entrance to provide a crossing to the existing pedestrian facilities on the south side of the
Road, which will connect to VDOT's bridge improvements. If VDOT plans further "Complete Street"
enhancements along Old Ivy Road, such as bike lanes, the Concept Plan could tie into that network.
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 minimizesafety risks.
Response: To slow traffic along the travelways, traffic calming measures such as "bulb -out" and street trees are
located along primary travelways where parallel parking is provided. In addition, some of the perpendicular
parking has been replaced with parallel parking. Pedestrian crosswalks are also highlighted as safe crossing
zones throughout the Concept Plan.
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.
Response: The proposed internal access is a travelway and not a street. This travelway will serve rental
housing within the development. Parallel parking and pedestrian crossings with bump outs provide traffic
calming measures along this access. If additional traffic calming measures are needed once the
development is built and requested by residents, those measures will be put in place at that time by the
Owner.
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.
Response: To enhance the Future Land Use Vision's goal of providing additional housing throughout the
County, including environmental and climate goals, while preserving the County's valuable resources, the
Concept Plan will create a wide range of diverse housing options including single-family detached houses,
attached single-family housing, duplexes and multifamily apartments to increase options for residents of all
ages and incomes. The Concept Plan will promote active lifestyles by providing a safe, convenient and pleasant
community for all residents. The Concept Plan's connected network of sidewalks, trails and pathways for
pedestrians and bicyclists will serve people of all ages and abilities, in conformance with the Future Land Use
Vision. This network will connect to active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the community.
The pond will serve as the central amenity along with two community center/pool locations. Along the pathways
will be located parklets, pocket parks, benches and seating areas, sports courts, tot lots/playgrounds and other
active and passive amenities both large and small. While the precise details of such amenities will be
determined at the site plan stage, the Concept Plan and the Illustrative Concept Plan demonstrate the
Applicant's current vision for the amenities, and they demonstrate at this rezoning stage that the Project will be
able to comply with the ordinance requirements for amenities at the site plan stage.
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.
Orientation IThis principle is not met.
he primary internal street within the development raises concerns for vehicular and
edestrian safety. The current length of the road is not consistent with Comprehensive
Ian Strategy #2b that states developments should be laid out in grids as opposed to
mg dead-end cul-de-sacs. From the entrance onto Old Ivy Road to the end of the
ul- de -sac, the distance is approximately 1,940 linear feet. Strategy #2b states that
iaximum block lengths should be 600 feet. The block break at the internal loop road
)the end of the cul-de-sac measures approximately 940 linear feet, which exceeds the
commendations from the Comprehensive Plan.
onflicts with this principle could be addressed by reducing the length of the primary
eternal street. For example, if density could be added at the south end of the site as
pposed to providing the units at the north end where the cul-de-sac is currently
hown, the length of the block would be reduced. Furthermore, eliminating the
roposed cul- de -sac as currently designed would potentially eliminate the need to
isturb Preserved Steep Slopes in order to building the cul-de-sac and the proposed
staining walls. This could result in the Preserved Steep Slopes ZMA request currently
nder review (ZMA202100009) from being necessary at all in order to develop the site.
s stated by Engineering and Transportation Planning staff, on -street parking along the
avel way poses safety concerns due to vehicles speeding because of the length of the
beet. Traffic calming measures could reduce these risks. Alternatively, reducing the
ength of the travel way could result in a more compact development form that would
revent vehicles from speeding and posing safety issues with the on -street parking.
dditionally, the southern end of the development does not show and sidewalks or
Cher pedestrian infrastructure being provided along Old Ivy Road to allow pedestrians
access the multifamily buildings. More information can be found under the
elegated Parking principle analysis below.
esponse: Traffic calming measures have been added to the plan that includes bump
uts and numerous pedestrian crossings along the primary travelway. A large area of
n-street parking on the east side of the primary travelway has been removed. A
pedestrian network has been added as well that includes sidewalks, trails, and a
pedestrian crossing at the entrance and Old Ivy Road, along with sidewalks along the
ronta a of the property.
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.
Response: Multiple housing types are provided within the Concept Plan to provide for
an economically and socially diverse community. The proposed multifamily
apartments include a mix of dwelling unit sizes and types. While contained within a
specific location in the Concept Plan, the apartment residences share all of the
common amenities of the larger community. The detached and attached single-family
dwellings are designed to integrate into the larger community by offering dwellings of
an appropriate scale to define the travelway network and frame the common open
green spaces that are connected by the network of sidewalks and pathways. The
scale and character of all dwellings are intended to seamlessly blend together to
create a livable, walkable neighborhood.
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 ries and GuidelinesTabIQ on page S+W 34 of the Master Plan. The
current proposal is not consistent with the future land use recommendations.
s 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.
Response: See response to Application Plan comment #1 in regard to the Comprehensive
Plan Parks and Recreation designation. The proposed layout respects the sensitive
features on the site. The requested reclassification of steep slopes relates to
manufactured (as opposed to naturally occurring) preserved slopes. This is consistent with
the County's use of the Conservation designation within the latest adopted Crozet Master
Plan, as well as prior rezoning applications, and numerous significant goals and strategies
of the Comprehensive Plan, as stated in detail in response to Application Plan comment
1 above.
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
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
policyrecommends 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 thenumber 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.
Res onse: See res onse to comment #2 above.
Relegated Parking
This principle is not fully met.
s 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 theletter, each of these properties are located within the Entrance Corridor (EC)
Overlay Zoning District. To be consistent with the relegated parking principle and EC
Desi n Guidelines, buildings should be located along the property frontage and face
he 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.
Walkwaysshould be provided from the sidewalks along the street to the front entry.
Having on -street parking or parking to the side or near of the building means that
edestrians 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
noparking 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.
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.
Response: Buildings along Old Ivy Road have been adjusted so that they are parallel with
Old Ivy Road and parking is now relegated behind the buildings. Please also see the
response to ARB comments further in this letter.
acted Streets This principle is not fully met.
portation
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 withthis principle.
to be potential to provide connections to an adjacent parcel to the
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
by no connections is currently proposed.
Response: Additional traffic calming and pedestrian measures have been added
to the Concept Plan to break up the primary travelway effectively into a number of
smaller blocks. While it ends in a cul-de-sac to enable emergency response
vehicles to turn around, it is not a public street, but a travelway to serve a rental
housing community. Also, connecting the end of the cul-de-sac to other areas
within the Project would severely impact environmentally sensitive areas. We
have attempted to reasonably and appropriate utilize areas that are not within
sensitive areas, to achieve reasonable density levels consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, while balancing the goal of preserving sensitive areas,
providing a variety of housing types, and demonstrating the ability to satisfy the
amenity area requirements. In response to staffs suggestion, the Concept Plan
now shows a proposed future potential interparcel connection to the adjoining
Universit Villa a property to the east.
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
he 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
stopat or within the project. Please contact Transportation Planning staff regarding
his matter, as it could be a suitable opportunity to create a public transit option and
result inthe 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.
Response: The updated Concept Plan now shows a location along the Old Ivy Road
frontage for a potential future bus stop. Sidewalks have also been provided along the
frontage of Old Ivy Road, and a pedestrian crossing has been provided at the
entrance to access the pedestrian facilities on the south side of Old Ivy Road. Further,
a roller has beenprovided for the relocation and maintenance of the Rivanna Trail.
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 designations. As such, lots and travel ways would need to be
outside of theParks & Green Systems future land use designation.
er attached comments from the Parks & Recreation Department, the re-routing of
e existing Rivanna Trail through areas of steep slopes (exceeding 25%) would create
trail system that is not user-friendly or easily navigable. P&R staff recommend that any
ranges to the trail result in an improvement that can support pedestrian and bicycle
Hers in accordance with best design practices. See additional comments from Parks &
ecreation below.
litionally, Zoning staff recommend that any areas with slopes greater than 25% that
not proposed to be disturbed be located within open space areas. See attached
iments below.
!sponse: As stated above, the Parks and Green systems designation on the Master Plan
is in response to VDOT taking ownership of a portion of the site for the since -canceled
astern By-pass project. Designation of areas for green systems, as the most recently
opted Crozet Master Plan identified, should be for those sensitive areas and areas
signated for future or existing parks. The proposed Concept Plan identifies those
nsitive areas, and does not propose any disturbance within sensitive areas. As noted
Hier, the areas designated as preserved steep slopes are actually all man-made areas.
addition, a proffer has been included for the relocation and maintenance of the Rivanna
ail. While the Concept Plan shows a potential relocation, the proffer allows for the trail to
field -located in coordination with Rivanna Trails Foundation and County Parks and
!creation. Other trails and pathways have been indicated throughout the Concept Plan,
have tot lots/playgrounds, sports courts, pools and other amenity buildings.
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
or staff to say that the proposed buildings will meet Strategy Kin from this principle and
also comply with Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines.
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
etails are needed on the form of buildings in order to identify the transition between unit
pes proposed.
s specified elsewhere in this letter, an alternate layout of buildings and streets withinthe
project would result in a more organized and cohesive form. Please see attached ARB
comments for further details.
Response: Old Ivy Road is not an Entrance Corridor. However, the apartment buildings
have been adjusted to be parallel to Old Ivy Road and parking has been relegated behind
he buildings. Open/green space areas are located between many of the building
envelopes and the Route 250/29 bypass Entrance Corridor. Site sections have been
provided to indicate the massing and building information along Old Ivy Road and from the
bypass and Ivy Road.
Redevelopment
his principle is met. Currently developed parcels would be redeveloped under thi
roposal.
especting Terrain and This principle is not fully met.
areful Grading and Re-
rading 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."
request to rezone and allow disturbance of Preserved Steep Slopes on TMPs 60-
3 and 60-24C4 is not consistent with the future land use classification (Parks &
an Systems) called for on the west side of the project. Eliminating the cul-de-sac at
north and focusing density in the south and east ends of the project would
inatethe need to disturb Preserved Steep Slopes, and thus the entire request
ght throughZMA202100009.
- Planning and ARB comments, less severe grading is highly recommended in order to
consistent with this principle.
ponse: The Applicant is committed to preserving and enhancing the
ronmentally sensitive areas identified on the Concept Plan. The proposed cul-de-
design is a product of this commitment, as it wraps around the pond and outfall to
serve sensitive areas within the site. The rolling topography of the site does not
ly allow for the site to be developed without some impacts to the grades.
hermore, it is critical to keep in mind that the areas of preserved slopes that are
tosed to be disturbed, while currently classified as preserved, are in fact man -
le remnants of unrelated prior construction and have little to no environmental
e. We have worked to minimize the grading impacts while balancing the site
ds, resulting in slopes that are functional and easy to maintain.
be clear, the Applicant is not requesting to impact or disturb preserved slopes. Rather,
request is for a zoning map amendment that will correctly classify slopes that were
Drrectly mislabeled when the steep slopes overlay district regulations were adopted.
:se "preserved" slopes are a product of fill operations performed by VDOT with the
rth Grounds Connector Road Project (now Leonard Sandridge Drive), and should thus
re been classified as managed slopes. Our original application package for ZMA 2021-
)09 included evidence of this fact, and our application materials and exhibits have been
sated in response to staff comments. Please see the updated materials for ZMA 2021-
)09 submitted concurrently with this resubmittal letter for more information.
Dreover, the grading activities in the wrongly -classified "preserved" slopes area are cuts
grade which will reduce the height of the slopes and thus reduce the concern for erosior
id impact to the downstream waters, furthering the primary goal of the County's
otection of steep slopes.
-he Concept Plan has been updated to provide for the interconnectivity of parcels for
uture development, and indicates that the Applicant will revegetate newly graded
dopes greater than 3:1 in certain areas to improve aesthetics, at the site plan stage.
n general, grading has been modified and is shown on the updated conceptual
Clear Boundaries Between the This principle is not applicable to the request. The nearest development area boundary
Development Areas andthe is located approximately 1/3 mile to the northwest on the opposite side of the Route
Rural Area 250/Route 29 bypass.
Department of Community Development - Plannina Division - Architectural Review Board (ARB)
(Maraaret Maliszewski)
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 alternate 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.
Response: The buildings closest to Old Ivy Road, which is not an Entrance Corridor, have been modified
to be parallel to the road with the parking relegated behind. Single family units are located along the
250/29 bypass Entrance Corridor, however the area between those lots and the property line will be
replanted to establish a landscape buffer that will supplement the screening provided by the bypass right-
of-way. In addition, a large area of open space/green space is located directly adjacent to the bypass
Entrance Corridor. Additionally, sections have been provided to indicate how these areas and buildings
will be oriented.
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.
Response: Grading has been modified and is shown in the conceptual grading plan. Every effort has been
made to orient the buildings into the landscape to reduce the grading needed to make efficient use of the
development area land as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
Response: Open space is provided as a transition between the proposed apartments and the single family
detached homes. We disagree that comfortable transitions need to occur between unit types, as many
established neighborhoods include apartments next to single family detached dwellings and single family
townhomes. Sections have been provided to indicate how the streetscape and units would work together.
4. ARB review/approval will be required for the site plan for this development and for the architectural
designs of all but thedetached single-family residences.
Response: Noted.
Department of Community Development - Enaineerina Division (Frank Pohl)
1. All proposed slopes are requested to be 3:1 or less. Add a note and adjust grading on plan to reflect 3
minimum slopes and reverse benches as required in 18-5.1.28 to confirm proposed impacts to
managed/preserved slopes.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Response: Please see the responses provided for Application Plan Comments #8 and #10.
Department of Community Development - Inspections Division (Betty Slouah)
1. 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 astamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined in
the USBC.
2. 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 A117.1-09 andthe 2015 Virginia Construction Code.
3. 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.
4. 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 drainor horizontal branch serving such
fixtures. Plumbing fixtures having flood level rims above the elevation of the manhole cover ofthe
next upstream manhole in the public sewer shall not discharge through a backwater valve.
5. 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.
6. Note to developer: Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA,
underground propane tanks may beprohibited. Plan accordingly.
7. 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.
Response: We understand from our communications subsequent to your comment letter that these
comments do not need to be addressed at the rezoning stage, but instead at the site plan stage.
Deoartment of Parks & Recreation (Tim Padalino)
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 apparentconsequence 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 corner of
the subject property.
Therefore, ACPR recommends that the project generally result in an equally good or improved Rivanna
Trail in that vicinity, forthe 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 best practices be used (including but not limited
to signage, crosswalks at private street crossing, etc.) for maximizing safety and convenience, and
optimizing user experience.
Response: A draft proffer statement has been provided and includes language to relocate the Rivanna Trail in
coordination with Rivanna Trails Foundation and County Parks and Recreation in the field during construction.
A general location is shown on the Concept Plan, and sidewalks may need to be utilized for connections,
particularly to cross the travelway within the development. Cross walks and signage are included in the draft
proffer statement.
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 its 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 bike/ped
infrastructure along Old Ivy Road for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public as well as future
residents of the proposed project.
Response: Sidewalks have been added along the frontage of the property and a crossing at the entrance with
Old Ivy Road has also been provided. The new crossing will support access to the existing sidewalk on the
south side of Old Ivy Road. In addition, the sidewalks will connect to the relocated Rivanna Trail.
Deoartment of Social Services — Housing (Stacy Pethial
1. 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 units 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 additionalunits gained the rezoning.
Response: See response to General Application comment #2.
VDOT (Doug MCAyoy)
1. Do the existing road improvements, plus the proposed turn lane installations, satisfy the Board of
Supervisors with respect to the 1985 Proffer?
Response: Please see narrative for information on the proffer. This application is proposing to modify the
previous proffer and action by the Board of Supervisors on this application will eliminate the 1985 proffer. See
also comments from Albemarle County Zoning staff, Lea Brumfield, copied below.
"The proffers associated with ZMA 1985-21 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."
Please also refer to exhibit materials submitted with our original application package, that detail the
extensive improvements that have been made to Old Ivy Road and surrounding roads since the 1985
proffer was adopted, which have significantly improved the situation. In addition, we have included a
proffer statement that proposes a cash contribution toward future transportation improvements in the
vicinity of the project that may be constructed to address existing congestion, in an amount that is
calculated to be proportionate to the Project's contribution to future trip projections at full build out of the
Project.
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 timeunder the 2025 Background condition.
d. Should Figure 5-1 be placed prior to Table 5-1, in the order that these arereferenced 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?
Response:
• The report has been updated to remove any typos or copy errors.
• Timmons Group will provide the Synchro files utilized in the analysis with this submission to both VDOT and
Albemarle County.
• The signal timings used in the analysis were provided by VDOT on May 18, 2021.
• All references to figures and tables have been updated.
ACSA (Richard Nelson)
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 shouldbe 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?
NIA
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 foresee?
8. Additional comments?
RWSA and City of Charlottesville sewer capacity certification will be required prior to any site plan
approval.
Response: See General Application comment #5 response.
V
LEA BRUMFIELD
County of Albemarle Senior Planner II, Zoning
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IbrumfieId(&aIbeFnaF'^ ^F^
tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3023
To: Cameron Langille, Principal PlannerDate: 2 September 2021
Re: Initial comments for ZMA202100008 Old Ivy Residences, and ZMA202100009 Old Ivy Residences Preserved
Slopesto Managed
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted applications.
Prior approvals and applicable proffers
• ZMA1982-11 - approved a rezoning of 33.549 acres from R-1to 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.
• 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 theBoard
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.
• 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.
Application plan
1. Phasing. Is phasing expected for this project? If so, address phase in the application plan.
Response: Phasing is not expected, but the final decision will be made at the site plan stage.
2. 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.
Response: See response to comments above under Neighborhood Model Principles under Interconnected
Streets and Transportation Networks.
3. 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.
Response: The Concept Plan has been updated to delineate the open space.
4. 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.
Response: The Concept Plan has been updated to clearly show the trails, pedestrian network, and amenity
areas. While the amenity areas are conceptual at this time, and the details will be determined at the site plan
stage, the Concept Plan demonstrates that the amenity space and open space requirements are met.
S. 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."
Response: The Concept Plan has been updated accordingly.
Proffers
1. 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.
Response: Noted. The draft proffer statement included with this resubmittal addresses this issue.
2. 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.
Response: Noted. Please see the draft proffer statement included with this resubmittal that addresses this
issue.
ZMA202100009 - Slopes
1. 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.
Response: Noted.
2. 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.
Response: See comment response to the Neighborhood Model Principle Respecting Terrain and Careful
Grading. Also as noted on the plans, the Applicant intends to enhance the pond for provision of stormwater
management. E&S measures will be required and installed to protect the existing pond and any distress that
could occur from a fluke rainfall event by overwhelming the E&S measures during the grading operations will be
abated with the pond enhancements. Please also refer to the updated materials submitted with this resubmittal
that are specific to ZMA 2021-00009, and that directly address this concern. The narrative for ZMA 2021-00009
explains how disturbing these man-made preserved slopes
"will result in a reduction to the stormwater that drains across the area, as the slopes will be
reduced in elevation, while also capturing runoff in a stormwater conveyance pipe system,
reducing overland flow and the total amount of runoff these slopes are subject to from a
stormwater volume perspective. This change will result in a reduction to the potential of
erosion over the remaining slopes, since those areas will see a limited amount of drainage
over top of them.
Furthermore, the overall project is proposing to desilt and improve the existing pond to
enhance the ecological benefits for the local habitat, improve the environmental impacts by
adding vegetation and aquatic benching, while providing volume to meet stormwater
quantity requirements."
Response to Transportation Comments
From: Applicant
To: Kevin McDermott; Planning Manager
Date: November 15, 2021
Re:ZMA202100008 - Old Ivy Residences Transportation Comments
The Albemarle County Community Development Department, Planning Division, Transportation Planning has
reviewed theabove 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 onthe entire segment of Old Ivy Road. Recommendations should include potential
improvements that could be made to address all significant impacts.
Response: The footnote was left in as oversight. The hashtag symbol notes when the 95th percentile volumes
exceed capacity and the queue may be longer.
Per VDOT's Traffic Operations and Safety Analysis Manual, existing conditions analysis is to utilize the
existing peak hour factor (PHF) as collected in the field. For background conditions analysis in urban areas,
the PHF should be a minimum of 0.92 if less in the existing conditions. In this case, the collected data showed
a PHF of 0.85 which was updated to 0.92 in the background analysis. The change in arriving traffic volume
intervals can account for the slight improvement in operations.
The Old Ivy Road corridor has existing operational and queuing issues. The additional site traffic does
marginally increase delays but is not responsible for the existing issues. The TIA has recommended
improvements within ROW that is controlled by the applicant.
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.
Response: The Concept Plan has been revised to provide pedestrian facilities along the entire frontage of their
property to allow for future connection of bicycle/pedestrian facilities installed by Albemarle County and/or
VDOT. The Applicant also will install turn lane improvements at the proposed site entrance to Old Ivy Road.
Please also see the draft proffer statement that proposes a proportionate contribution toward future
transportation improvements in the area.
Application Plan
• Please show proposed pedestrian improvements on Old Ivy Road. VDOT's funded bridge replacement of Old
IvyRoad 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.
Response: As noted above, the Concept Plan has been revised to provide pedestrian facilities along the entire
frontage of their property to allow for future connection of bicycle/pedestrian facilities installed by Albemarle
County and/or VDOT.
• Was a secondary access point considered, possibly a right-in/right-out,to help distribute trips?
Response: The Updated Concept Plan now shows a potential future interconnection with the parcel to the west,
in the event it develops in the future.
• 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 thedevelopment would be an improvement. Could something with a more grid like pattern be
considered?
Response: Please see prior response to this question in this letter.
• 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)?
Response: Please see prior response to this question in this letter.
• 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.
Response: please see the updated Concept Plan, which shows additional pedestrian and bicycle connections
and related elements.
46494276.3