HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA202100009 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2021-12-28pants Cameron Langille
Principal Planner, Planning
,xtx, County Of Albemarle blangille@albemarle.ore
Community Development Department tel: 434-296-5832 ext. 3432
Memorandum
To: Valerie Long, vlong@williamsmullen.com
Date: September 5, 2021; First Revision: December 28, 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. First Revision: A proffer
statement has been Drovided with the resubmittal. Please see comments from Parks & Recreation. Housine. and
Transportation Plannine staff attached to this letter. The following comments have been issued related to
specific proffers:
Proffer #1 - States that development will be in general accord with Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan. Sub -letter f of
proffer #1 states that affordable housing will be provided, but affordable housing notes are shown on Sheet 1 of
the Concept Plan. Per Housing review comments, please consider revising the affordable housing notes so they
are on Sheet 8.
Proffer #2 - Parks & Recreation staff are supportive of this proffer, please see the comments attached below.
Proffer #4- Based on Transportation Planning comments and the review of the updated TIA, staff cannot
recommend that the 1985 road improvement proffer has been satisfied at this time.
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. First Revision: A proffer statement has been
provided with the resubmittal. The proffer statement now includes a proffer (#1) that states certain
development standards/layout features that will be adhered to should the ZMA be approved.
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. First Revision: Please see attached Housing comments.
Housing staff recommend that affordable housing be Drovided so that 15% of the units that could be built on
TMPs 60-51 and 60-24C3 be affordable. This would be 22 affordable units (15% of the 144 units that could be
developed on those parcels).
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
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
affordable units should the rezoning be approved? First revision: If the applicant intends to provide
affordable units as recommended by Housing staff, then please consider moving the affordable housing
calculation/notes to Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan.
b. Please see comments from the Housing Planner attached to this letter. Planning staff encourage the
applicant to contact Stacy Pethia, spethia0albemarle.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.
First revision: Comment stands if the applicant has further questions related to affordable housing.
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. First revision: Comment
addressed, per applicant explanation of the parcel boundary changes/legal state of the TMPs through the
Certificate of Take (recorded in DB 1761, page 614, invalidated through recordation of DB 5330, page 110). No
further revisions needed to address this comment.
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. First revision: Since
the time of the first review comment letter. ACPS has published a new report identifvine updated 2021 capacity
and future enrollment figure/projections. Please consider revising the narrative footnote #7 link on page 15 so
that the narrative references the updated ACPS study.
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 enrollment
figures of proposed developments. First revision: The narrative uses the correct calculator for student
yield figures (Cooperative Strategies Subdivision Yield Analysis, Dated August 23, 2021). No further
revisions needed to address this comment.
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? First Revision: Narrative (page 15) provides student Yield analysis
estimates that use correct multipliers from the report mentioned in comment #4a above. No further
revisions needed to address this comment.
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." First revision: Comment
not fully addressed. ACSA review of the revised applications are not vet complete. Please be aware of
Engineering Division staff comment #2 attached below. If the proposed lift station will not be publicly owned and
will have 3 or more connections, a central sewerage system approval must be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
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. First revision: VDOT
staff have identified several technical revisions needed to the TIA (VDOT comment #la and #lb).
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. First Revision: Per attached Transportation
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Planning comments, staff will not be able to recommend that the ZMA198500021 proffer has been
satisfied at this time. Staff acknowledges that the applicant has now proposed proffer #3 related to
transportation infrastructure as part of the application. However, the proffer stipulates that the funds
must be used within 30 years or they will be returned to the owner. There are not currently any
CountyNDOT CIP projects or plans in place to upgrade the Old Ivy Road corridor street network (and
associated intersections). Therefore, it is unlikely that the funds proposed by proffer #3 would be able to
be utilized for any transportation improvements.
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. First revision:
Staff acknowledges that the application now proposes additional pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks along
project frontage with Old Ivy Road). However, the sidewalk does not connect internally to the site. As
recommended by Parks & Recreation staff, the application could be strengthened if additional sidewalks extend
into the development along the internal travel ay.
Furthermore, as noted in comment #6 above, staff cannot say that the application has satisfactorily addressed
transportation impacts that would be generated by the development on surrounding public roads (Old Ivy Road).
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. First
revision: The concept plan has been revised to show two stub -outs to the east to TMP 60132-1. It is
staff's understanding that the applicant is engaging in ongoing discussions with that property owner
related to the street stub -outs and potential for additional full interconnections to be made. Please
provide information as to whether any agreement have been secured with the owner of TMP 60132-1 to
allow for vehicular usage of the proposed stub -outs so that cars could travel onto Crestwood Drive to
enter and exit the Old Ivy Residences project, or clarity whether those are shown for emergency access
use only.
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. First revision: Comment addressed,
community meeting was held on November 15, 2021 at the Places29-Hydraulic Community Advisory Committee
(CAC) meeting.
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. First revision: Per applicant comment response letter, the
net density calculation used on Sheet 8 of the Concept Plan currently uses the acreage of proposed open space
to identify the proposed net density. Applicant acknowledges that the net density calculation does not use the
land desienated as Parks & Green Systems by the Southern & Western Neighborhoods Master Plan future land
use plan. Staff uses the acreage of Parks & Green Systems from the future land use plan to identify net density. It
may be beneficial to add a net density calculation based on the land use plan recommendations, in addition to the
proposed open space net density calculation used on the concept plan. This could be added to Sheet 8 for
reference purposes, and this would allow staff to evaluate the proposed net density based on the specifics of the
application, as well as the Master Plan recommendations.
W W W.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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. First revision: Per applicant comment response letter, phasing is
not proposed at this time and will be determined later at site plan stage. Planning Division staff have no
objections to this, but additional comment from Zoning Division may be forthcoming pending completion of their
review.
3. Please update the overlay zoning district note on the application plan to state "Managed & Preserved Steep
Slopes." First revision: Comment addressed.
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. First revision: Comment addressed, note #6 on Sheet 2 of the concept plan identifies
the acreage of Preserved Slopes proposed to be redesignated as Managed through ZMA2021-09.
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. First revision: Comment stands pending completion of Zoning
Division review.
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.
First revision: Comment stands pending completion of Zoning Division review.
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." First revision: Comment addressed.
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. First
revision: Please see attached Engineering Division comment #1. Correct Code section is 18-4.3.3.
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.
First revision: Comment has partially been addressed throueh the addition of sidewalks along the frontage with
Old Ivy Road. However, no bicycle facilities are provided. Staff cannot verify that there is adequate space to
install bike lanes in the future as asserted by the applicant's comment response letter.
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. First revision: Comment addressed. Perpendicular spaces proposed have been substantially reduced
and instead parallel spaces are now provided along the travelway at certain points.
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. First revision: Comment
addressed based on the reconfigured parking locations/design.
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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. First revision: Per applicant comment response
letter, the project layout as originally proposed will remain the same.
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. First revision: A proffer
statement was provided with the resubmittal. If the applicant chooses to further revise the proffer statement
based on comments #1 and #6 above, additional comment may be forthcomine.
2. Please see Zoning Division comments #3a and #3b regarding the existing proffers that apply to the parcels within
this project. First revision: Comment stands pending completion of Zoning Division review.
Planning
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
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.
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
d. em lmvwmwyve ewimd�ummur uemsn mwumn,o�mrm�eaoi.gaemwmrtdpmn,onmm dmxmimmm sMmdv,,mx�
wap enmem me,�mmdyandneum mwrm n�nawprvmpnmumimudmnm{gemuvepgene wawpngma vrtivp wmuertdm uw�uwspnw� �[rce�anl
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
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.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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.
First revision: Applicant has responded that the development will not be removed from
areas that are designated for Parks & Green Systems future land use. Please be aware
that this will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report.
Comments related to parking have been addressed. There are also now breaks in block
length along the internal travelway that make the layout generally consistent with
block length recommendations from this principle.
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.
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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.
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.
First revision: Applicant has responded that the development will not be removed from
areas that are designated for Parks & Green Systems future land use. Please be aware
that this will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report.
The layout shown on concept plan is now being proffered, but Sheet 8 only identifies
multifamily and single-family units. As noted in the narrative (page 4). the breakdown of
single-family housing types will be determined later at site plan stage. In the original
submittal, there was a drawing (Sheet 17 of the concept plan) that identified the three
single-family housing types, is there a reason that has been removed?
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.
First revision: Please see attached Housing comments regarding affordable housing.
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
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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.
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.
First revision: Parking and multifamily building layout and design have been revised
significantly and are now consistent with this principle. Please be aware of ARB
comments regarding units on the west side of the project which may not be fully
screened by the existing vegetation along that perimeter of the EC. ARB will review all
units (other than single-family detached units) at the site plan stage and additional
screening measures may be needed.
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.
First revision: The concept plan has been revised to show two stub -outs to the east to
TMP 60132-1. It is staff's understanding that the applicant is engaging in ongoing
discussions with that property owner related to the street stub -outs and potential for
additional full interconnections to be made. Please provide information as to whether
any agreement have been secured with the owner of TMP 60B2-1 to allow for
vehicular usage of the proposed stub -outs so that cars could travel onto Crestwood
Drive to enter and exit the Old Ivy Residences project, or clarify whether those are
shown for emergency access use only.
Multimodal Transportation
This principle is not fully met.
Opportunities
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
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 250/01d 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.
First revision: Sidewalks are now provided along the project frontage, which is
consistent with the Master Plan recommendations for these parcels. The application is
not proposing any off -site sidewalk construction along the rest of the Old Ivy Road
corridor.
Applicants comment response letter states that the concept plan now shows an area
for a bus stop along Old Ivy Road. However, this is not identified on Sheet 8 of the
concept plan. This should be called out so that VDOT and Transportation Planning staff
can verify that the area could actually be utilized for a bus stop and pull -off area.
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 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.
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
First revision: Applicant has responded that the development will not be removed from
areas that are designated for Parks & Green Systems future land use. Please be aware
that this will be noted as an unfavorable factor in the staff report.
Per Parks & Recreation comments, staff recommends that the concept plan identify
additional pedestrian facilities at the site entrance onto Old Ivy Road. This could be
sidewalks or pathways that connect the entrance to the crosswalks located further
north into the proposal where dwelling units are proposed.
Additional comments regarding recreational facilities may be forthcoming pending
completion of Zoning Division review.
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.
First revision: Building layout and orientations have been revised since the initial
submittal. Staff concerns related to the multifamily buildings adjacent to Old Ivy Road
have been addressed. However, please see attached ARB comments. The units on the
west side of the project may not be fully screened by the existing vegetation along that
perimeter of the EC. ARB will review all units (other than single-family detached units)
at the site plan stage and additional screening measures may be needed.
Redevelopmen*
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.
W W W.ALBE MARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Per Planning and ARB comments, less severe grading is highly recommended in order to
be consistent with this principle.
First revision: Please see attached Engineering Division comments. The application
should demonstrate compliance with grading standards specified by Section 18-4.3.3 of
the County Code.
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 - Zonine Division
Review not yet complete, comments from Lea Brumfield, Brumfield@albemarle.org will be forwarded to the applicant
upon receipt.
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
No objection, see attached comment from Betty Slough, bslough@albemarle.org.
Department of Fire & Rescue
No objection, see attached comment 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 Doug McAvoy, douglas.mcavov@vdot.virginia.gov.
ACSA
Review not yet complete, comments from Richard Nelson, rnelson@serviceauthority.org will be forwarded to the applicant
upon receipt.
Action after Receipt of Comments
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.
Applicant requested deferral on Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors action on the applications following
issuance of the first review comment letter. Applicant may resubmit to address staff comments, or request to schedule a
public hearing with the Planning Commission. Within one week of receipt of this letter, please contact staff to identify
whether the applications will be resubmitted for a subsequent staff review or if a public hearing is requested.
Resubmittal
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
401 McIntire Road, Suite 228 1 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is a resubmittal fee of $1,538.16 for each ZMA, for a total
of $3,076.32 if the applicant chooses to resubmit.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is blangille@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
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
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, December 23, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Kevin McDermott - CDD Planning Requested Changes
Based on the results of the TIA, information provided throughout the applicants submittal, and field review of the surrounding
transportation network, it is apparent that the Corridor and intersections providing access to the Corridor are significant
concerns for accessibility, congestion, and safety. Recognizing that it is the applicants intent to remove the proffer associated
with ZMA1985-21 which 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." It should be
noted that this proffer would not be considered satisfied by staff.
There are currently no improvements programmed in the VDOT Six -Year Plan nor in the Countys Capital Improvement
Program. According to the proffer statement under #3 Transportation Improvements, the County or State will have to program
significant public funds in order to access any additional private funds provided as part of that proffer. The stipulations
requiring the funds to be used within 10 years of the first CO and that the applicant be responsible for only 6% of the total cost
of improvements make it unlikely that the funds will be able to be utilized for any transportation improvements.
While staff appreciates the efforts to improve the intemal travelway network with this second submittal there are still concems
for safety regarding the layout and does not appear to meet many of the aspects of the Neighborhood Model, primarily the
desire for interconnected streets and transportation networks.
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Monday, December 13, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB See Recommendations
The proposed development includes buildings that are oriented non -parallel to the EC street and/or with their backs to the EC
street. Wooded area on site and in the right-of-way shown on the concept plan could mitigate some of the impacts of this
orientation, but it is anticipated that the wooded area will not eliminate all visibility of the development from the EC street. 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--1 County of Albemarle Primed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, December 17, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina Requested Changes
1. The applicant is correct, I referenced the incorrect code section 5.1.28. The section I should have referenced is 18-4.3.3,
Grading Standards. Please ensure these standards are incorporated into the design.
2. Please confirm how the buildings will be served for water and sewer. Will all buildings be served by the lift station? Will each
building be served by a ACSA water meter? If the lift station is not publically owned and will have 3 or more connections, a
central sewerage system approval by the Board is required. Additionally, approval of a central water system is also required by
the Board if proposed [Chapter 16]. 1 recommend to submit the central systems documents and request to the Board so that
the required board meeting can be coordinated with the ZMA board meeting. I apologize that I didn't catch this on the first
review.
Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100009
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - PRESERVED TO MANAGED SLOPES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, December 17, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Frank Pohl CDD Enaineerina Requested Changes
1. The applicant is correct, I referenced the incorrect code section 5.1.28. The section I should have referenced is 18-4.3.3,
Grading Standards. Please ensure these standards are incorporated into the design.
2. Please confirm how the buildings will be served for water and sewer. Will all buildings be served by the lift station? Will each
building be served by a ACSA water meter? If the lift station is not publically owned and will have 3 or more connections, a
central sewerage system approval by the Board is required. Additionally, approval of a central water system is also required by
the Board if proposed [Chapter 16]. 1 recommend to submit the central systems documents and request to the Board so that
the required board meeting can be coordinated with the ZMA board meeting. I apologize that I didn't catch this on the first
review.
Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Friday, December 10, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Betty Slough CDD Insoections No Objection
Pager County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: I Monday, December 13, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Howard Lagomarsino -E Fire Rescue No Objection
Page: 1--1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 22/2812 221
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Thursday, December 09, 2021 Department/DivisiordAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Tim Padalino —2 Parks See Recommendations
1. Comment 91 Update (12/9/2021): ACPR acknowledges the proposed relocation of the Rivanna Trail on the revised Concept
Plan. ACPR further acknowledges the revised Proffer Statements #2a, 2b, and 2c.
Thank you for your commitments to incorporate the "Relocated Rivanna TraiP into the proposed redevelopment plans, to
construct the Relocated Rivanna Trail in coordination with RTF and ACPR, and to maintain/extend the License Agreement with
RTF for the benefit of future residents of the proposed redevelopment and the general public. Thank you for also committing to
implementing appropriate pavement markings and signage as a condition of final site plan approval, if the Relocated Rivanna
Trail crosses an internal roadway.
2. Comment #2 Update (1219/2021): ACPR acknowledges the proposed sidewalk along Old Ivy Road that would connect with
the proposed Relocated Rivanna Trail, as well as the proposed sidewalk/crosswalk across Old Ivy Road to the existing sidewalk
on the opposite side of the roadway.
The proposed crosswalk across the entrance to the project is set back approximately I from the proposed sidewalks along
Old Ivy Road — a design which would require a pedestrian to walk a total of approximately 200' additional feet in order to utilize
the crosswalk where it is currently proposed. Therefore, ACPR recommends an entrance design that incorporates a crosswalk
that is better aligned with the proposed sidewalks along Old Ivy Road.
Additionally, the revised Concept Plan does not appear to include any bicycle -oriented infrastructure or other accommodations
within the Old Ivy Road ROW or along the property frontage. ACPR recommends incorporating a bicycle lane (or other
bicycle -oriented infrastructure or accommodations), in consultation with applicable County staff.
3. Comment #3 Update (12/9/2021): No Update — ACPR staff remain available to communicate further regarding these issues,
and to discuss and evaluate potential ways to try to address any bicycle, pedestrian, and recreational issues at conceptual
and/or technical levels of detail. Thank you.
Pager County of Albemarle Primed On: 12/28/2021
Review Comments for ZMA202100008
Project Name: OLD IVY RESIDENCES - DIGITAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Stacy Pethia Housing Department Requested Changes
Under current zoning, the applicant could build a maximum of 471 residential units. By rezoning parcel 60-51, and the portion
R10 portion of parcel 60-24C1 to R15, the applicant could build a maximum of 569 residential units. And the applicant is
proposing to build a maximum of 525 residential units.
The current Comprehensive Plan recommends 15% of the total residential units built under a rezoning be made affordable to
households earning no more than 80% of area median income (AMI). Based on the maximum number of units the applicant
proposes for the project site, the number of affordable units to be provided under Comp Plan recommendations would be 79
(15% of 525 proposed units).
The applicant is proposing that 15% of the units representing the difference between the number of units that could be
developed under current zoning and the number of units that could be developed following a rezoning to R15 would be made
affordable to households with incomes at 80%AMI. This would equal 15% of 98 units, or 15 affordable units.
I recommend the applicant consider providing 15% of the total number of units that could be built on parcels 60-51 and the
portion of parcel 60-24C1 proposed for rezoning, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance. This
would equal 15% of 144 units, or 22 affordable units.
If you have any questions, let me know.
Stacy
Page: � County of Albemarle Printed On: 12/28/2021
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
December 21, 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
Review #2
Dear Mr. Langille:
(804) 7862701
Fax: (804) 7862940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Timmons Group, dated 15
November 2021, and offers the following comments:
1. Comments from Traffic Engineering:
a. Note that the SB right -turn movement is currently running an Overlap with phase
5 but that is not included in the Synchro files provided. This would need to be
added to each of the Synchro files.
b. 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 for the SB Left-Thru (shown in Table 3-1) movement has
decreased by 285 feet under the 2025 Background Conditions. It does not make
sense with no roadway improvements for the queue length to decrease when the
traffic has actually increased.
2. Note that the final plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual
Appendices B(1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations or other
requirements.
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
December 21, 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
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